Contrasting Lebanon and Yemen with Iran, Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, the former’s revolutionary processes differ from the latter because of their religious divisions. Lebanon is a country with many divisions, and those sects have inter-sects, which makes it extremely difficult to organize a unified force. Due to this, it is nearly impossible to organize a movement that is strong enough to overthrow the government. Yemen is faced with a Zaydi Shiite rebel group against the Sunni government, resulting in a proxy war between Saudia Arabia and Iran. This shows how external actors can aid insurgents in removing the new government that Arab Spring supporters thought was once successful. Firstly, Lebanon’s events contrasts with states like Iran, Egypt, …show more content…
The revolution against the 33-year rule of the corrupt Ali Abdallah Saleh was successful, yet short-lived, because his successor Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi was effectively placed under house arrest by Houthi insurgents (Lawfare 3-5). As the Houthis devastated the Hadi government and “central authority,” the insurgency eventually became a proxy war between the Iran-supported Houthi government (Zaydi Shiite) and the Saudi-supported Hadi government (Sunni) (Lawfare 2, 5). As a result, two “functional” governments formed with the Houthis in Sanaa and Hadi in Aden, and people have not only died from air strikes but also from modern history’s worst cholera outbreak (Lawfare 5, 6). Because external actors remain engaged in this proxy war, Yemen’s situation demonstrates an Arab Spring failure. Ultimately, Yemen is under the list of countries that failed in its revolution, and the government’s constant clash with the well-armed Houthis is an event that has not been synonymous in the Iranian, Egyptian, and Tunisian revolutions. The Houthis – who essentially act as elites by using Iran’s wealth and power – have been preventing DeFronzo’s second condition to occur, and therefore, reverting its revolutionary process of drafting a new