Yemen entered a new era Sept. 21 after Sanaa's fall, which will change the country's map for the next decade or two. Still, the implications of this historic event and its risks have not been carefully examined. Instead, the UN envoy and the Yemeni parties have been preoccupied in covering what happened under the banner of a fragile agreement that claims to uphold national peace and partnership.

This agreement will fail to stop the war machine in the country because it's simply a political covenant imposed by the weapons of the militia rather than the state. It's an agreement trying to legitimize the fall of the capital and cover the truth on the ground, which is the collapse of the Yemeni state and its replacement by militia forces taking control of its streets and expanding militarily to the rest of the country’s provinces.

First and foremost, it's important to shed light on the scenarios put forth by analysts concerning the capital's fall. According to the first scenario, President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi had previously agreed to let the Houthis enter Sanaa to get rid of the Muslim Brotherhood’s military wing in Yemen, with regional and international consent, but the Houthis did not play by the rules. They did overthrow the Brotherhood’s military wing, but also some of the state’s institutions, such as the national TV station. According to a Yemeni affairs expert who wished to remain anonymous for security reasons, the Omani mediation reached an agreement between Hadi and the Houthis to oust the Islah military wing, but the Houthis breached the agreement.

The agreement also comes in the context of fighting terrorism, as the Islamic State (IS) fighters are expected to flee from Iraq and Syria to Yemen. Some analysts such as Gregory Johnson, who wrote “Last Refuge” about al-Qaeda in Yemen, and Ibrahim Sharqieh hold that the West saw the best way to fight al-Qaeda as through the Houthis instead of the weak Yemeni government.