President Trump authorized large-scale strikes
against Houthi rebels over the weekend, targeting anew the militia
group that first plunged Yemen into civil war over a decade ago, for its
interference with shipping where the Red Sea meets the Gulf of Aden.
In many ways this is familiar territory. The current U.S. military
intervention in Yemen began under the Obama administration, though it
was never authorized by Congress. During his first term, Trump doubled
down, repeatedly authorizing strikes in Yemen. He also insisted on
committing to U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition intervening
against the Houthis, even vetoing a bipartisan
congressional measure to end U.S. involvement. The Biden administration
conducted limited strikes in response to shipping attacks.
Still, this is also a fresh escalation—and one the administration has described as a major intervention. Here's a brief on what has happened and what it means.
'Getting rid of these guys'
- "We're doing the entire world a favor by getting rid of these guys
and their ability to strike global shipping," said Secretary of State
Marco Rubio of the Houthis on Sunday. "That's the mission here, and it
will continue until that's carried out." [CBS]
- Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth similarly spoke of an "unrelenting"
U.S. assault but described a narrower goal: "stopping the shooting at
assets in that critical waterway to reopen the freedom of navigation,
which is a core national interest of the United States." [DoD]
- Actually, the U.S. "does not rely on trade running through the
Middle East. With direct ocean access to markets in Asia and Europe and
little dependence on Middle Eastern oil, U.S. trade has been resilient
to Red Sea disruptions." [RS / Jennifer Kavanagh]
- Already these new U.S. strikes have reportedly "killed at least 53 people, including children, and wounded others." [AP / Jon Gambrell]
The Iran factor
- The Houthis are "also the last group standing in Iran's so-called
axis of resistance," DEFP's Daniel DePetris observes, as Hamas and
Hezbollah are both weakened by Israeli military operations and markedly
less inclined toward direct confrontation with the U.S. [Chicago Tribune / DePetris]
- "The message is clear to Iran," Hegseth said in the same statement.
"Your support of the Houthis needs to end immediately. We will hold you
accountable as the sponsor of this proxy, and I echo [the president's]
statement [that] we will not be nice about it." [DoD]
- A social media post by Trump went further, declaring, "Every shot
fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as
being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN, and IRAN
will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those
consequences will be dire!" [Axios / Barak Ravid]
- Trump had recently sent more positive signals to Iran, dispatching a letter apparently inviting diplomacy and threatening reprisal. Tehran rebuffed the gesture.
Policy recs
- If Rubio's maximalist approach—which stops short of regime change
only because the Houthis barely amount to a regime—is truly the Trump
team's goal, they'll "have an awfully difficult time achieving
it," DePetris argued.
- And "this entire situation could snowball into yet another large,
resource-intensive U.S. military commitment in a part of the world where
previous large, resource-intensive U.S. military commitments have ended
in frustration."
- Retaliatory U.S. strikes on the Houthis over the last year and a
half have failed to oust the militia, just as a far larger, less
restrained, U.S.-backed onslaught by a seven-year Saudi-led coalition also failed.
- "Presidents need to know when to pick their fights," DePetris concludes. "Yemen isn't one of them." [Chicago Tribune / DePetris]
- As for the rest of the world of whom Rubio spoke, you'll have to
forgive them if their reaction is more "confusion rather than
gratitude," wrote DEFP's Jennifer Kavanagh. After all, isn't this an
invitation to free-riding?
- "Far from a clear signal of resolve, U.S. military strikes in
Yemen send a decidedly mixed message about the role Trump and his
advisors want the United States to play in the world."
- Instead of risking all-out war with Iran and disproportionately
subsidizing the wealth and security of European and Mideast nations,
"Washington should demand that all those who stand to benefit from the
return of commercial traffic to the Red Sea are willing to put their own
ships, personnel, and dollars on the line." [RS / Kavanagh]
| | |