Our Attacks on the Houthis

The editors of the Washington Post react to our attacks on the Houthis who have been attacking shipping in the Red Sea:

The U.S.-led airstrikes against targets in the Houthi-controlled parts of Yemen represent a new level of American involvement in the Middle East upheaval that began Oct. 7. Some regional analysts are already warning that the action plays into the Houthis’ hands, and risks igniting a wider Middle East conflagration, without much chance of having their intended effect: to deter further Houthi attacks on international shipping.

Precisely the opposite is true. The Houthis already escalated the regional conflict, by using the pretext of Israel’s war with Hamas to launch unprovoked attacks against commercial ships traversing the Red Sea. The United States and its coalition allies — Britain, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands and Bahrain — had little choice but to mount a strong response. And this coalition employed just the right amount of proportionate firepower. If the Biden administration could be faulted for anything, it is that the same effort taken sooner might have had greater effect.

and

The Houthis’ leadership has made its strategic objective clear from the start; its goal was to draw the United States into a fight, ostensibly to show solidarity with Hamas. Having taken over Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, in 2014 and endured a civil war and a bloody Saudi Arabia-led bombing campaign, the Houthis survive — and thrive — on never-ending conflict. Actual governance is not their forte, as their official slogan indicates: “God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam.”

concluding:

We have no illusion that these airstrikes mark an end to the conflict, and the Houthis have already vowed retaliation. But the United States, with wide support, open or tacit from other countries, has sent a strong message. Let’s see how it’s received, by the Houthis and their patrons in Tehran.

I haven’t argued that our attacks on Houthi positions were unjustified or disproportionate but I do question whether they are achieving any tactical or strategic objective. The very fact of our attacks prove that the Houthis have been successful in achieving their military objective in harassing Red Sea shipping—it has drawn us into the conflict. Whether that’s prudent of them or not is another question.

I wish the editors had made a case that our attacks on Houthi positions were reducing support for them in the Gulf region. That, at least, would have provided evidence that we were achieving a reasonable objective. Alas, they did not.

2 comments… add one
  • bob sykes Link

    The Houthi are attacking only Israeli owned and Israel bound shipping. They have stated that their attacks will stop when Israel stops it war against Gaza and the West Bank. All other shippping is free to pass through the Red Sea and Suez. Ships are avoiding that route out of caution.

    The Saudis, with our help, bombed the Houthis and fought them on the ground for 9 years to no avail. The Houthis, with help from Iran, learned to build and use drones and cruise missiles. They also demonstrated the inadequacies of American air defense systems, especially Patriot 3.

    Our air attacks will have no effect on the Houthis, and may expand the current Israeli-Palestinian war to the whole region. The neocons will be tempted to invade Yemen. They should ask the Brits how that turned for them.

  • Andy Link

    Bob,

    On the contrary, most of the ships they’ve attacked have nothing to do with Israel.

    I gave one example at OTB.
    https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/us-uk-strike-houthi-targets/#comment-2860165

    Since then, they attempted to attack a Russian ship, apparently under the mistaken belief it was a UK-registered ship because they’re working off an old registry database.

Leave a Comment