So far, the strategic targets of the Trump war in Yemen are still mysterious. In the famous conversation on the Segnal application, the US Secretary of Defense wrote that the matter is not related to the Houthis, but rather to restore deterrence capacity, and in order to open the waterways. Even Vice President Jd Vans did not believe the story of this waterways, and wrote warning – in the same place – from saving the Europeans again.
What does Trump want from his war in Yemen? In his article on Furn Policy on April 28, Keith Johnson tried to provide a multi -layer answer to this mysterious question.
Trump believes that he can succeed in the issues in which Biden failed to protect international trade and dismantle the complex Iranian axis. But is there a reason, really, to open the marine corridors? At Johnson’s estimate, what Trump did with international trade and maritime roads is more dangerous than the Houthis. And in the moment of the crackdown on international trade and the decline in the prices of carriers, the opening of marine corridors is not a priority for the world.
There is a dangerous matter in the whole game. If the Trump administration wants to review its military ability to send to China a message that you do not think about the occupation of Taiwan, then its dull performance in Yemen will lead to counterproductive results, as Johnson believes.
The restoration of deterrence, as the Minister of Defense wrote in his comments on Segnal, the concept part of the American strategy in Yemen appears. This strategy faces extremely difficult complications, given its lack of a output exit strategy.
There is no meaning for any deterrence accomplished by a tremendous force such as the United States of America in a neglected land of the world, such as Yemen, unless the battle ends with the disappearance and disappearance of the Houthi system, or at least its disintegration in the way of Hezbollah.
This goal appears to be very difficult unless it takes the form of a hybrid, internal and external war, and unless the American forces are going back to take the form of an air cover for a strong ally that moves its human energy on the ground.
After a full year of the American-British strikes on the Houthi targets, Trump rescued military action against the same enemy, believing that he could win the battles in which his predecessor failed.
In addition to the battle in Yemen, Trump is fighting, on the international theater, battles that are difficult, and his focus appears dispersed, so that his Ministry of Defense does not provide any briefs to the media about the state of war in Yemen. Trump is besieged with noise coming from everywhere, and with confusing internal and external files, waiting for a happy news from Yemen to end his adventure.
In a highly complex country like Yemen, and in front of a large group experienced with hybrid wars such as the Houthis, the most dangerous thing that Trump might do is to entrust this war to a group of officers and bureaucrats, thinking that it will be a lightning war, as his country has a lot of “wonderful missiles” according to his words.
Biden and his team were aware of the danger of the Houthi challenge, they are “fast in producing cheap and effective combat means, if they were not of the same quality that the United States produces, it is good enough to affect the course of the battle,” said Sullivan- the National Security Adviser in the Biden Administration- in front of a group of reporters last January.
Sullivan believes that his country has occurred in a “very bad equation”, as it uses advanced missiles to bring down relatively cheap paths, and launch many smart projectiles produced by American contractors very slowly, for excessive complexity.
Before Trump arrived at the White House, the American administration had made an effort to contain the Houthi military force. During a US Navy Conference in Arlington, Virginia, early this year, Admiral Brendan Makkalin said in front of an audience of naval officers who gathered to discuss the lessons of the Red Sea conflict, that US naval ships launched 120 SM-2 missiles, 80 SM-6 missiles, and 20 SM-3 missiles.
SM-2 missiles cost about two million dollars per one, while the SM-6 missiles, capable of shooting down ballistic missiles during flying, cost about $ 4 million per missile. As for the SM-3 missile, which is able to hit targets in space, its price ranges between 9 million and 28 million dollars per one.
There is no accurate data on the amount of what the Biden administration spent its war on the Houthis within 15 months. According to Constantin Torobin, the military correspondent of Military.com, US Navy missiles in Biden have cost more than half a billion dollars. This inventory does not include offensive, expensive missiles, in the Tomahawk category.
There is a great fear of an imminent situation in which the American navy will suffer from a smart ammunition deficit. In November of last year, Samuel Babaro, the leader of the American leadership in the Indian and calm surroundings, disclosed real concerns in the heads of leaders, and the military operations had not escaped as the heavy manner that Trump did.
Wasting the smart weapon in the Houthi chasing may impose “costs on America’s readiness to respond in the area of the Indian and calm surrounding, which is the most stressful region in terms of the amount and quality of ammunition, because China is the potential opponent of the world” according to the words of Babaro. There are senior opponents, such as China, the Trump administration wants to disturb their knife by its military parade in Yemen.
They will be pleased that this message will never reach, and that the American army will stumble again in mountainous countries. The scene appears to be ridiculous and contradictory, as the army that slips into a critical situation in supply in the “smaller” battle is not expected to worry about a discount knife standing on his land, between his factories and his machines, and aspires to retrieve what he believes is his stray island.
Smart ammunition production is not easy, and re -filling the stores requires time and effort. According to the Brookings Institute, there were 13 American contractors to make tactical missiles and a large list of weapons in 1990.
The United States of America was encouraged to integrate small companies with Al -Kubra to find themselves in 2020 in front of an uncomfortable strategic reality. There are only three contractors who are doing the mission, namely: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Worthy of Technologies. The manufacturing flexibility that America possessed a third of a century ago is no longer in place now.
Where will the Trump war be spent in Yemen? It is difficult to imagine a way out or a picture of victory saturating the vanity of the new American leader who is believed to be able to win the battles in which his predecessor stumbled.
Biden is close to the Houthis militarily with great caution, they are a special challenge, and “they will be happy with an expanded war with the United States,” as Sullivan told reporters, and he was aware of what he was saying. As for Trump, he said publicly that he is going to the complete elimination of the Houthis, and not only to open maritime roads.
Iran’s allies have collapsed in other regions, but the Houthi ally seems different from others, and it will be a mistake to believe that his disappearance has become a foregone foreground.
Emily Melikian, a researcher at the Rafic Hariri Center, believes in her article on the Atlantic Council website that what makes the Houthis a difficult challenge is their operational flexibility, their ability to strategic adaptation, and their deep influence inside Yemen. In addition to “changing regional priorities and the desire to avoid escalation with Iran.”
Attracting their decisive defeat, Melikian believes, requires a complex approach that takes many elements into account, not just throwing bombs from the air. Unless the back moves on the ground, and here is the Yemeni armed forces, then there is an opportunity for Houthi to overcome the survival question.
Regional forces support several military formations that are supported by a senior Yemeni military source, a million fighters. These wide formations have a deadly element, they are contradictory and fighting, and are not linked by a link.
However, Trump is able to pushed his allies to unite these diaspora to fight a battle under one roof, which is still outside the scope of Trump administration’s thinking. At least, if we take the seriousness of his defense minister’s statements about his ministry’s indifference to the Yemeni internal battle.
Until now, Trump still believes that he has the threads of the ongoing military game in Yemen, and it is not likely that his leaders put the facts in front of him as they are, as he is a leader who does not bear much friendliness towards the truth.
At the beginning of the current century Bush believed that the fullness of ammunition stores was sufficient to win a decisive victory in a complex country called Afghanistan. That war became the longest in the history of America, and instead of “complete elimination” of the Taliban, the latter returned to rule the country after 19 years of war against America. And here it is governing all Afghanistan again, but with an American weapon this time.
The Yemeni leaders from their Arab allies heard recently unambiguous words. No one is ready to fight with an ally who may leave the battlefield tomorrow and without warning.
The Ukrainian example in this context is more than sufficient. The world is aware that the United States has a “bold, bold and aggressive decision -making maker, who strongly wants to achieve the strongest, highest, luminous, and most wonderful result, and does not think twice about the side damage that he will leave behind,” according to Dan Adams’s analysis of Trump’s character in his article on the Atlantic magazine. This color of leaders goes to the battle and often returns, by losing.
In the past, Al -Masoudi reported in the promoter of gold from the Umayyad prince as saying, “The absence of news about us was one of the most certain reasons for our king’s disappearance.” However, the matter, regarding America, is not related to the demise of the king, but rather less than that: the loss of wars, once after the other.
The opinions in the article do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al -Jazeera.
