The New York Times published an article by a researcher in security affairs, in which he discussed the risks and ambiguity surrounding the American and British military strikes in Yemen and the goal behind them.
The director of the Defense and Security Program at the Middle East Institute, Bilal Youssef Saab, considered that the United States, by striking targets of the Ansar Allah (Houthi) group in Yemen and its Iranian supporters, sent a “stinging” message that it had abandoned the defense-only position in the Red Sea that it had long adopted. It is determined to stop this group’s attacks on commercial ships in territorial waters.
He said it was unclear whether this strategy would succeed, given the intransigence of the Houthis, who would benefit from any fighting with the United States. He added that a clash of this kind would enhance their ability to prove their credibility to their American enemies, and divert attention from their “ugly” management of the affairs of the northwestern regions of Yemen and the capital, Sana’a.
However, the author of the article believes that the United States is required to act given the growing threat the Houthis pose to freedom of trade and navigation in the Red Sea, which is a major global shipping lane and of fundamental importance to Washington in the region.
US President Joe Biden expressed his readiness “to implement further measures to protect our people and the free flow of international trade as necessary.”
The writer believes that if Biden adheres to this new “tough” approach, provides American forces in the region with the mandate and resources they need, and links any further use of force with diplomatic efforts to end the disastrous war between Israel and the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), his chances of curbing the Houthis will improve. getting better.
After the Al-Aqsa Flood operation on October 7, 2023 and Israel’s declaration of war, the Houthis vowed to launch attacks aimed at stopping Israeli ships or other ships carrying goods to “occupied Palestinian ports” to show solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza.
Since last October 17, the Houthis have attacked or harassed at least 27 ships in international shipping lanes.
On January 11, the United States and some of its allies responded by striking more than 60 targets in Yemen, including Houthi radar systems, air defense systems, and storage and launch sites. The United States carried out another round of strikes against the Houthis on Friday.
The writer pointed out in his article that the risks and doubts surrounding the American and British attacks in Yemen are clear.
Iranian support
The Houthis – who were removed by the US State Department from the list of foreign terrorist organizations in February 2021 with the aim of facilitating the transfer of humanitarian aid to parts of Yemen under their control – had announced that they would take revenge.
The announcement of this group – in the opinion of the author of the article – may lead to an escalation that Washington strongly desires to avoid, which is evident from the multiple visits of US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to the region recently.
The author of the article claims that without the “generous” support that the Houthis receive from Iran in the form of money, training, and intelligence information, this group would have lost its ability to cause severe harm to navigation in the region.
However, even if Iran stops its support for the Houthis, this will not prevent them from using the weapons they already have, which is a significant matter, according to the article, the author of which adds that they can also “theoretically” stand alone given their control of the state’s revenues and resources.
In light of these risks – the author continues – the United States has no choice but to respond to the Houthi aggression, which “the more intransigence and recklessness they show, the broader the international consensus to confront them.”