I think there is a massive misunderstanding here.

I wrote: It [Ansar Allah] **wanted an end to** [its own economic disenfranchisement, political marginalization and discrimination] **as…

I think there is a massive misunderstanding here. Nowhere in this article did I state anything like ‘Zaidi Shi’a’ would be ‘Wahhabists’, even less so would I ever come to the idea to call them ‘Sunnis’.

I wrote: It [Ansar Allah] **wanted an end to** [its own economic disenfranchisement, political marginalization and discrimination] **as well as to the outright conversion of ever-larger parts of Yemeni society to Saudi-style Wahhabism**.”

Means: one of reasons for their insurrection was precisely the conversion of ever larger parts of Yemeni population to Wahhabism: as Shi’a, they opposed this process.

I do not understand why is this misunderstood as if I wrote ‘Zaidi Shi’a = Wahhabists’?

In that sense:

> The Zaidi are just your average Sunni…

This is entirely wrong. The Zaidi are Shi’a, no Sunnis (that said, some of Saudis I know would deny them as being even this, i.e. would insist Zaidis are ‘even less than Shi’a’). Furthermore, they couldn’t even be described as ‘your average Shi’a’: they were the state-building body for the Imamate of Yemen over centuries.

At least we’re in agreement over one issue: the ongoing war in Yemen is anything else but a ‘proxy war’ involving Iran.