The Strike On The Houthis… Too Little, Too Late

The joint US-British strikes on the Houthis in Yemen broke the rhythm of the Iranian-backed militia’s escalation. It seems that these strikes, the first of their kind since 2016, are in themselves “too little, too late.”
Yemen experts agree that the US could not have turned a blind eye to the Houthis carrying out 27 attacks in the Red Sea, undermining shipping in a crucial maritime route for global trade and industry. Another matter experts are nearly unanimous on is that these strikes cannot address the complex and dangerous threat posed by the Houthi militia, an Iranian proxy that is jeopardizing the security of the Gulf, the global economy, and stability across the Middle East.
In a broader sense, the US strike on Yemen is one item on a long list of flawed or misguided American policies for addressing strategic challenges in the region in general, be it with regard to Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, or Iran itself.
US policy in Yemen was the first victim of US President Joe Biden’s ascension to the White House. He has used US foreign policy as a means for getting the upper hand on his rival, former President Donald Trump. As he vies to come out of this acrimonious political struggle on top, Biden is recklessly and perilously abandoning all strategic considerations in his foreign policy.
On February 4, 2021, in his first foreign policy speech, the Biden administration announced that it would stop supporting offensive operations carried out by the Saudi-led coalition, put an end to arms sales, and confine its assessment of the Yemeni crisis to only two elements. It defined it as, on the one hand, a civil conflict driven by regional actors that should be resolved through a UN-led peace process supported by Washington, and on the other, a humanitarian catastrophe that should be dealt with a disaster management mindset.
While it is true that even President Trump’s administration did not deviate from the shift towards this position, unlike the Biden administration, Trump’s left the strategic dimension of the Yemen war at the forefront for the most part. Trump’s administration defined the conflict as a proxy war fueled by Iran and addressed many aspects of the conflict in accordance with particular perceptions of the dynamics of influence and hegemony in the Middle East.
These shifts in the US position have undermined the coalition’s efforts, especially since they were coupled with constraints on what the coalition could achieve militarily. For example, Washington insisted that the port of Hodeidah not be liberated, allowing Iran to maintain and enhance its influence. Not only did Washington avoid dealing directly with Iran’s role in the Yemen crisis, it went so far as to remove the Houthi movement from its list of foreign terrorist organizations under the pretext of facilitating humanitarian aid, which reinforced the Houthis’ political legitimacy and fortified their position, as well as strengthening Iran’s influence in the Middle East in an unprecedented manner.
The irony is that today, Saudi Arabia is calling for restraint as the US becomes militarily involved in Yemen, with the Kingdom calling for calm in the strategic sphere of the Red Sea region and warning against expanding the scope of the conflict!
With this farcical moment, the blunders precipitated by the rise of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party have reached their peak, giving rise to a new dynamic in US foreign policy. These blunders are the result of granting humanitarian approaches, human rights issues, diplomatic means, and global cooperation the utmost priority, even if it comes at the expense of the strategic interests of the US and its allies, or geopolitical and economic realities across the globe.
Historically, the United States has managed to balance between its values and the need to maintain stability and confront hostile forces, especially in regions like the Middle East. However, it began taking excessively progressive foreign policy positions when Barack Obama was elected president, and today these policies are jeopardizing that delicate balance. Moreover, these positions have created turbulence in the Middle East and created strategic gaps that rival powers like Russia or China are filling. Let us recall, for example, that the Obama administration hesitated to decisively intervene against the Syrian regime, even after the latter crossed the “red line,” reinforcing the global impression that the United States was not serious about confronting actual authoritarian regimes, particularly those allied with Iran. Its inaction allowed Iran, and then Russia, to strengthen their positions in Syria, support President Bashar al-Assad, and expand their military presence, thereby altering the regional balance of power.
More dangerously, this foreign policy shaped by the progressives in the United States, which they claim is rooted in human rights and diplomacy, has, in light of the Gaza war, been branded hypocritical and opportunistic, further aggravating its strategic failures. The principles that supposedly determine Washington's policies and decisions in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq do not seem to apply to Israel’s war in Gaza, which has so far resulted in the tragic loss of 23,000 lives, mass destruction, and the displacement of more than 1.9 million residents, as well as carrying the potential for escalation!
This stark contrast in Washington's stance when Israel is concerned undermines the credibility of the United States’ claims of putting human rights and humanitarianism at the forefront and preferring diplomacy over military action. It weakens American moral and political authority on the global stage and rattles strategic interests and alliances.
Indeed, we are facing a Washington that has lost its ability to effectively defend its values, human rights, and humanitarian standards around the world, as well as its military prestige, which is the guarantee of its alliances and interests. The recent strikes in Yemen are nothing more than a desperate attempt to compensate for the setbacks suffered by the US role in the region, as they are not part of a coherent strategy with defined objectives.