Lenderking Blames Houthis and Iran for Red Sea ‘Militarization’

In an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, the US envoy to Yemen calls for an “immediate end” to “terrorism” against ships

US Special Envoy for Yemen Tim Lenderking. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
US Special Envoy for Yemen Tim Lenderking. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
TT

Lenderking Blames Houthis and Iran for Red Sea ‘Militarization’

US Special Envoy for Yemen Tim Lenderking. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
US Special Envoy for Yemen Tim Lenderking. (Asharq Al-Awsat)

Both Iran and the Houthis should be blamed for the “militarization of the Red Sea,” said Tim Lenderking, the US special envoy to Yemen, stressing that the military action undertaken by the United States and its allies is "against the Houthi military capability.” Lenderking said the Houthis are acting "like a global terrorist organization,” calling on them to “stop their attacks immediately.”

Lenderking was talking in an exclusive interview with Asharq Al-Awsat on the eve of his new tour in the region, said the situation in Red Sea “has become unbearable.” However, he left the door open to different measures, adding: “When their attacks stop, we can stop too.” He believed that this Houthi behavior “contradicts support for the Palestinians.” Pointing out that their behavior is endangering the “tremendous progress” achieved in the “peace process” led by the United Nations.

Lenderking stressed that “Iran poses a major threat,” describing supplying the Houthis with money and weapons to attack ships as “very convenient for Iran’s agenda,” which is acting to “destabilize,” and not “the behavior of a member of the international community.”  

- First. Now with this attack on the US Post in Jordan, it's not within your scope, but apparently, Iran is behind those attacks in Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. This is your area, and there is the huge problem in the Red Sea. How is the US going to deal with this issue?  

You’re absolutely right to point out the central role that Iran plays in destabilizing activity all over the region. This is nothing new. This is a feature of Iran's regional behavior since 1979. Instead of seeking constructive diplomatic solutions to the conflicts plaguing the region, Tehran has instead, time and time again, sought to destabilize it. If Iran were truly interested in peace in the region, they would cease their arming and financing of the Houthis and other destabilizing groups.  Instead, we only see that support continuing, as evidenced by the recent interdiction of a shipment of weapons from Iran to Yemen.  

This attack last week is just another example. This one is particularly egregious because it killed three US service members. What we see on the Yemen front is the Iranians playing a very active role in facilitating and assisting the Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea. This is a very unfortunate posture for the Iranians and the Houthis to take. What has this this led to? The militarization of the Red Sea. Something no country, including Iran, supposedly wanted up to this point. There are now more warships and more other ships protecting international commerce than there were before.  

The Houthis are driving up prices through attacks on international shipping. That means an increase in the prices of wheat and other goods getting to the Palestinian people or to other parts of Africa, Europe, and Asia. It's driving up fuel prices. It's adding on 5,000 miles, as shippers say they don't want anything to do with the Red Sea. They are having to go around the southern tip of Africa. How many tons of food are going to be spoiled by this additional long traverse? And how much higher will food prices go? This is hitting ordinary consumers. It's not just hitting the Israelis. It's not just hitting the Americans. It's hitting ordinary consumers around the world in every country, including Yemen, and the Palestinians as well.  

So, I would argue that the Houthi attacks must stop because they are inflicting damage on the global community and on Yemen. And that's why we think that the Houthi attacks are misguided. They're reckless. They’re indiscriminate, and that's why they should stop.  

- They say they are outraged by the Israeli attacks on the Palestinian civilians as you’ve just mentioned, and if the US pressure Israel, then everything will stop, not only within the Red Sea context, but also in the wider context. Iran is using this argument all the time. Again, they have the same the Axis of Resistance. They have the same argument, why doesn't the US listen to this?  

What the Houthis are doing is an example of someone having a problem with their neighbor and burning down the neighborhood grocery store. They're harming their neighbors and themselves and not actually addressing the core issue. This is why 24 countries signed a statement last week supporting military action to deter and degrade Houthi attacks. And this military action is not against Yemen, or against Yemenis. It is against the Houthi military capability which they are using to attack civilian shipping.  

So, we've been very clear about what the scope of these military strikes is. Similarly, the Houthis are behaving like a terrorist organization; attacking civilians, attacking civilian shipping, attacking innocent mariners, detaining them, threatening to hijack ships, not releasing the crew of the Galaxy Leader, 25 people from five different countries.  

We now have announced a designation of the Houthis as a specially designated global terrorist group, which will go into effect on February 16. This is the kind of response that the Houthis are generating. They're alienating the world community, and doing nothing to help the Palestinians, and putting the peace process in Yemen - which parties have painstakingly negotiated over the last two years, including the Houthis - in jeopardy. The Houthi behavior is misguided, and they should stop their attacks on shipping immediately.  

- And at the same time, what's going on probably, as you’ve just mentioned also, that this is affecting the peace process within the Yemeni parties, and then probably your support is also getting compromised. Is that the case?  

Our support for the peace process remains unshakable. I don't think that the peace effort in Yemen would be as far along had it not been for US support, and the commitment of this administration, and the priority that the President places on peace in Yemen through a Yemeni - Yemeni political negotiation and a durable ceasefire. Those remain US goals, and this is very much what we want to return to.  

But unfortunately, much of the progress that has been made over the last two years, which has created a truce in Yemen, which is still holding, is being jeopardized by the militarization of the Red Sea, which is caused by the Houthi attacks, and the threats that they are posing to shipping and to the civilian population. Absent political settlement, the humanitarian and economic crises will continue to get worse.   

The designation is a direct response to Houthi attacks on shipping. If there are no Houthi attacks on shipping, there is no need to designate them as a terrorist organization. If there are no Houthi attacks on shipping, there is no need for a growing coalition of countries to strike and degrade their military capability to protect international shipping.

- You’re talking about Operation Prosperity Guardian…  

Prosperity Guardian is another action that the Houthi attacks have generated – a large international response, defensive in nature, solely to protect crews and international ships which the Houthis are attacking in a reckless and indiscriminate manner. They say that they are only attacking Israeli ships, but that is simply not the case. They have attacked international ships with owners and crew of all different nationalities. Even hijacking and detaining a crew from Mexico, Ukraine, the Philippines and Bulgaria. That's the behavior of pirates. That's not the behavior of a group that seeks international support for a Yemen peace effort. That's the behavior of pirates.   

- Are you going to take additional measures if they continue their attacks against the international shipments?  

We have been very clear that we seek de-escalation in the Red Sea, but the Houthi attacks cannot continue. We are evaluating every day the situation in the Red Sea and elsewhere in the region, and what aggressive and militaristic steps the Iranians or the Houthis might be taking. But it is our fervent hope, and we're working every day on this, to de-escalate all of these conflicts.  

You've seen that American officials are working with Qatar and other countries for the release of the remaining hostages and a prolonged humanitarian pause to the fighting. We have made a strong push for more humanitarian assistance to Gaza, to address the tragic situation there. And we were very patient with the attacks on shipping until the situation became intolerable, and were forced to take action because of Houthi behavior. When their attacks stop, we can stop also.

- You don't want escalation. But nonetheless, the situation is just dragging the US into this, probably.

I fear that other parties may be wishing to escalate. And the Houthis by attacking a huge variety of ships, that was an escalation. Attacking Israel, and trying to hit the civilian populations, was an escalation. Again, these things do not help the Palestinians. They’re not bringing a single morsel of assistance or food to the Palestinian people, because of their actions. Nor are the Houthi attacks helping Yemen, which has one of the world’s largest humanitarian and economic disasters.  

They should stop. And we can return the focus to the Yemen peace effort, and put more effort towards supporting the Palestinians and their legitimate aspirations for a two-state solution, which Houthi behavior frankly is complicating and undermining.  

There isn't a single country in the Gulf that supports what the Houthis are doing; attacking international shipping, masquerading under the banner of support for the Palestinians, because the reality is that this behavior is contrary to supporting the Palestinians.

- Could you please elaborate more what you've been doing with the Saudis and the other countries in the region?  

We're working very closely with the Saudis, other regional actors and the Yemeni parties, on the Yemen peace effort. That's been the case since the start of this administration, reflecting the priority that the President placed on ending the Yemen conflict. We have appreciated Saudi Arabia's engagement mediating between the Houthis and the Yemen government, and helping contribute a roadmap for peace in Yemen, which the Houthi and the Yemen government and regional countries support.  

So ironically, while the world is focused on the Houthis’ reckless attacks on global shipping, tremendous progress was made in the past month on the peace process– captured in an announcement by the UN on December 23 last year – that an agreement has been reached. This is the best opportunity that Yemen has had for its peace process in nine years.  

Why are the Houthis jeopardizing peace by behaving like an armed militia group and a terrorist organization in attacking civilian shipping? Why are they driving away the attention from the Yemen peace effort, attention Yemeni peace needs and deserves? They are choosing to sabotage all the good work that so many parties have put into creating a dream that the Yemen conflict could finally be over – why are the Houthis – trying to throw that all away? Instead of prioritizing the Yemeni people?

- What are the immediate obstacles facing this political track led by the UN?

I think the obstacles are the recklessness of the Houthi behavior. Prior to their attacks, both the Yemen government and the Houthis had approved this roadmap that the UN now is able to try to operationalize. And again, this is the most tangible progress that’s been made in the Yemen conflict in 9 years. And that’s been put in jeopardy by the indiscriminate nature of the Houthi attacks on the Red Sea shipping. What international country would support a peace effort in Yemen when one of the parties - the Houthis - is attacking the global economy?  It is not the behavior of the Yemen government or any other party in Yemen that’s threatening the Yemen peace effort. It is the Houthis.  

- Iran is in the picture no matter how we speak negatively about the situation. So, this is a dilemma: how you're going to deal with it?  

Iran is a major threat, and in our conversations every day we talk about how to respond to the Iranian threat, especially in light of the killing of three service members in Jordan. Look at what we see Iran doing. We know that Iran is supporting, aiding and facilitating Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping. This is very convenient for Iran's regional agenda. It's not convenient for the Yemeni people, however. It's not convenient for other Arab countries.  

Look at the contents of a small ship that were seized about two weeks ago by US forces enforcing UN Security Council resolutions on not smuggling, to aid the Houthis or fan the conflict in Yemen. That particular ship was filled with lethal equipment heading toward the Houthis to be used for their attacks on Red Sea shipping. So, this is the behavior of those seeking to destabilize. This is not the behavior of members of the international community. So, we need everybody to dial it back, de-escalate, and return to the legitimate and genuine peace effort in Yemen that is now threatened by Houthi attacks.

We are talking to our partners multiple times a day. We have numerous engagements that we are planning to ensure that there is the speediest possible resolution in the Red Sea, which enables a return to the Yemen peace process. All of my efforts are focused on this particular line of effort.



Lebanon Between 2026 War and Negotiation Talks Next Week

Residents search for belongings in the rubble of a building hit by an Israeli strike in the Ain el-Mreisseh area of Beirut (Reuters)
Residents search for belongings in the rubble of a building hit by an Israeli strike in the Ain el-Mreisseh area of Beirut (Reuters)
TT

Lebanon Between 2026 War and Negotiation Talks Next Week

Residents search for belongings in the rubble of a building hit by an Israeli strike in the Ain el-Mreisseh area of Beirut (Reuters)
Residents search for belongings in the rubble of a building hit by an Israeli strike in the Ain el-Mreisseh area of Beirut (Reuters)

Lebanon, under sustained Israeli air strikes and an open war, is entering a pivotal week as it prepares for preliminary meetings expected next week that could open a new negotiating track to secure a ceasefire, stabilize the border, and regulate the south.

The move brings Lebanese-Israeli negotiations back into focus, not as a precedent, but as a continuation of a path shaped by wars and facts on the ground.

The key shift lies in the form. Most past negotiations were indirect, conducted through the United Nations, international mediators, or technical committees. Lebanon has seen only one formal round of direct negotiations at this level, the May 17, 1983, agreement. That makes the 2026 track, in form, the closest parallel, though it differs sharply in context, conditions, and aims.

From armistice to border demarcation: indirect track

Negotiations between Lebanon and Israel began with the 1949 Armistice Agreement, signed in Naqoura after the 1948 war and the Lebanese army’s participation in the al-Malikiyyah battle.

It established a ceasefire, adopted the armistice line based on international borders, and set up a joint committee under UN supervision.

Since then, all frameworks, except the 1983 deal, have stayed within indirect or technical formats.

In April 1996, Israel’s “Grapes of Wrath” operation and the Qana massacre led to the April Understanding, which barred targeting civilians. It set up a monitoring committee including Lebanon, Israel, the US, France, and Syria, helping curb escalation until Israel’s withdrawal from the south in 2000.

After the 2006 war, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 set the international framework for the southern border, including a halt to hostilities, deployment of the Lebanese army south of the Litani River, expansion of UNIFIL, and restricting weapons in the area to the state.

In 2022, US-mediated indirect talks on maritime borders ended with the adoption of Line 23 and recognition of Lebanon’s right to develop the Qana field, seen as a model for technical, non-political negotiation.

In November 2024, border escalation produced a fragile ceasefire that included partial Israeli withdrawal from some points, expanded Lebanese army deployment south of the Litani, and a halt to hostilities. Repeated violations and weak implementation exposed its limits, prompting calls for a stricter mechanism.

“Mechanism”: toward direct engagement

In 2025, the term “mechanism” emerged as a practical framework to anchor a ceasefire. The proposal centers on a five-party committee including Lebanon, Israel, the US, France, and the United Nations, backed by technical and field monitoring.

Lebanon insists the Lebanese army alone must implement any arrangements on its territory, rejecting any Israeli operational role on the ground.

This marks the core shift. Unlike previous talks, which were indirect or technical, the 2026 meetings are set to be direct or semi-direct, making them the second such test after May 17.

Second time since 1983

Former MP Fares Soaid said Lebanon is entering “the second instance of formal direct negotiations with Israel,” after the first, which followed the 1982 invasion, when President Amine Gemayel pursued talks to secure Israeli withdrawal and reach an understanding.

He said 1983 unfolded under vastly different conditions. “The obstacles were enormous. The Cold War shaped the scene, and the Soviet Union, led by Yuri Andropov, opposed any track that could pull Lebanon fully into the US camp,” he said.

Arab capitals, led by Damascus under Hafez al-Assad, were not supportive, and Lebanese public opinion, especially among Muslims, was not ready, he added.

Although the May 17 agreement won majority backing in parliament, Damascus, aligned with the Soviet camp, mobilized local forces, leading to the February 6 uprising and the collapse of the deal, effectively besieging Gemayel in Baabda, Soaid said.

He said 2026 presents a different landscape. “There is no Soviet veto, the international climate is more positive, and Arab and Islamic positions are more open to negotiations,” he said.

“There is no objection from Damascus and no real internal opposition. The negotiating delegation is expected to be formed in line with the constitution and presidential powers,” he added, saying the chances of success are far higher than in 1983.

Negotiation is not normalization

A Lebanese parliamentary source said conflating negotiation with normalization has no legal or political basis, stressing that talks do not amount to diplomatic recognition or normal relations.

Lebanon has repeatedly negotiated, from the armistice to the April Understanding and the maritime demarcation, without changing its legal or political stance toward Israel, the source said.

“Negotiation is a political decision governed by international law and the Vienna and Geneva conventions,” the source said, adding that legal doctrine does not treat negotiation as recognition.

Lebanon has used multiple formats, from separate rooms to technical committees, all confined to specific files tied to security, borders, and sovereignty.

“The issue is not the form, but the substance,” the source said. “If the goal is to stabilize borders, stop violations, and restore sovereignty, that falls within the core duties of the Lebanese state.”


Israel Adopts Phased Approach to Lebanon Negotiations

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House (file photo, dpa)
US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House (file photo, dpa)
TT

Israel Adopts Phased Approach to Lebanon Negotiations

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House (file photo, dpa)
US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House (file photo, dpa)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had opted for a gradual approach in negotiations with Lebanon, sources close to Netanyahu said on Friday.

This means that Israel will start with technical and procedural issues before moving to major files, depending on the trajectory of US-Iran talks that began in Pakistan.

The sources cited by Maariv said Netanyahu chose a relatively junior official to handle the file, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Yechiel Leiter, after initially planning to appoint his close adviser, Ron Dermer.

They said Dermer disagreed with Netanyahu’s approach. He argued Israel should agree to a ceasefire on the Lebanese front to allow the Islamabad talks to proceed without disruption.

In discussions with US envoy Steve Witkoff, he concluded that the continued war with Lebanon was undermining negotiations with Iran and could give Tehran grounds to trigger a crisis that prolongs the talks.

That would in turn harm President Donald Trump, who faces mounting domestic pressure to prevent a return to war.

Dermer, who manages US-Israeli dialogue, believes Trump’s opponents are exploiting the war politically, accusing him of being pulled behind Netanyahu and his personal and partisan interests at the expense of US interests, damaging Israel’s standing in the US.

The Israeli military, however, opposes ending the war with Lebanon and insists negotiations proceed under fire. The stance reflects a public perception that operations have not met their objectives, alongside anger over continued shelling from Lebanon. The fire has expanded into southern Israel and, while causing limited physical damage, has spread panic and reinforced calls to press on.

A poll published Friday showed 79% of Israelis oppose halting the war before Hezbollah is dismantled and disarmed.

Netanyahu has aligned himself with the military, leaving Dermer in a difficult position as both seek a formula that would satisfy Washington.

Katz said Hezbollah is “pleading for a ceasefire, and its Iranian patrons are also applying pressure and issuing threats, out of serious concern that Israel will crush Hezbollah.”

Boaz Bismuth, head of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said the war could resume in the “coming days,” describing the current ceasefire as a temporary arrangement.

Seeking to reassure the public, especially in the north where rocket fire is heaviest, Katz said the “massive and unprecedented attack on Lebanon” had dealt Hezbollah a severe blow, leaving it “stunned and confused” due to the depth and scale of the strikes.

He said the “separation of fronts” agreement, led by Netanyahu, was a key achievement that allows Israel to act forcefully against Hezbollah under an organized plan, with forces ready to escalate if Iran opens fire.

Katz said the plan rests on four lines: the border line, including the destruction of homes in Lebanese border villages, a defense line inside Lebanon expanded from five to 15 points, an anti-tank defense line secured through ongoing ground operations, and the Litani line, which Israeli forces aim to control to prevent infiltration and block residents from returning south.

He added the military would also launch a powerful air campaign, modeled on operations against Iran, targeting operatives and rocket launch sites in the Litani area and across Lebanon outside it.

Israeli military chief Eyal Zamir approved additional plans to expand the war and ground operations in Lebanon after touring and assessing the situation near Bint Jbeil on Thursday.

“Our main combat arena is here in Lebanon. The objective defined for you is the removal of the direct threat to the residents of the north, which you are carrying out with determination,” Zamir said to troops, according to remarks published by the army.

He said the army remained at war, deepening ground operations and striking Hezbollah hard.

“This is a very powerful operation, and our forces are on the front lines and in depth,” he said. He added that strikes on Iran were also affecting Hezbollah, which he said had become isolated inside Lebanon and cut off from its “strategic artery” in Iran.

“The Lebanese government now understands more than ever the scale of the problem posed by the presence of a radical extremist terrorist organization on its territory,” he said.

 

 


Lebanon Says Israel Talks Set for Tuesday in US, Israel Won’t Discuss Hezbollah Ceasefire

 Lebanese Americans and supporters gather in support of Lebanon during a vigil in Dearborn, Michigan, US, April 10, 2026. (Reuters)
Lebanese Americans and supporters gather in support of Lebanon during a vigil in Dearborn, Michigan, US, April 10, 2026. (Reuters)
TT

Lebanon Says Israel Talks Set for Tuesday in US, Israel Won’t Discuss Hezbollah Ceasefire

 Lebanese Americans and supporters gather in support of Lebanon during a vigil in Dearborn, Michigan, US, April 10, 2026. (Reuters)
Lebanese Americans and supporters gather in support of Lebanon during a vigil in Dearborn, Michigan, US, April 10, 2026. (Reuters)

Lebanon's presidency said Friday that a meeting would be held with Israel in Washington next week to discuss a ceasefire in the Israel-Hezbollah war and the start of negotiations between the neighbors.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has repeatedly expressed readiness for direct talks with Israel since Hezbollah drew Lebanon into the Middle East war on March 2 with rocket fire at Israel in support of its backer Iran, sparking massive Israeli strikes and a ground invasion.

After a ceasefire was announced between the United States and Iran this week, Washington and Tehran have been at odds over whether it also applies to Lebanon, as Israel has kept up heavy strikes on the country and Hezbollah has responded with its own attacks.

A statement from Aoun's office said that a first telephone call was held on Friday between the Lebanese and Israeli ambassadors to Washington and the US ambassador to Lebanon, who was also in the American city.

"During the call, it was agreed to hold the first meeting next Tuesday at the State Department to discuss declaring a ceasefire and the start date for negotiations between Lebanon and Israel under US auspices," the presidency statement said.

A Lebanese government official told AFP on Thursday that Lebanon wants a ceasefire before starting any negotiations with Israel.

But Israel said Friday it will not discuss a ceasefire with Hezbollah.

Meeting with his Lebanese counterpart to set up the talks, Israeli Ambassador to Washington Yechiel Leiter "refused to discuss a ceasefire with the Hezbollah terrorist organization," he said in a statement afterward.

Israel "agreed to begin formal peace negotiations" with the Lebanese government, with which it has no diplomatic relations, said Leiter.

Hezbollah “continues to attack Israel and is the main obstacle to peace between the two countries," he said in a statement.

- Security forces killed -

Earlier Friday, Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem urged the Lebanese government to stop giving "free concessions" to Israel and vowed that "the resistance will continue until the last breath".

Hezbollah has rejected direct talks between the two countries, instead calling for Israel's army to withdraw from Lebanon.

Late Friday near Beirut's seaside promenade, an AFP photographer saw dozens of people, some riding mopeds or brandishing Hezbollah or Iranian flags, protesting against the authorities and negotiations with Israel, after a similar gatherings elsewhere in the capital earlier in the evening.

Lebanese authorities say the weeks of hostilities have killed more than 1,950 people, while the provisional toll of massive Israeli strikes across the country on Wednesday alone has risen to 357 dead.

Israel's military said it "eliminated more than 180 militants" from Hezbollah in Wednesday's strikes, which came hours after the US-Iran ceasefire was announced, adding that "the count is still ongoing".

It also said it had "dismantled" more than 4,300 Hezbollah sites in Lebanon and killed "more than 1,400" Hezbollah fighters since the war erupted.

Lebanon's state-run National News Agency (NNA) reported strikes on south Lebanon on Friday, saying that "enemy warplanes launched a series of heavy strikes" on Nabatiyeh, hitting a State Security office near the government headquarters in the city.

An AFP photographer saw extensive damage and a fire still raging at the site, where State Security said 13 of its personnel were killed.

- Beirut threat -

Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said the "painful loss only strengthens our determination to achieve a ceasefire", while Aoun urged the international community to "assume its responsibilities in putting an end to the repeated Israeli aggressions".

Hezbollah also claimed dozens of attacks on Israeli targets, including cross-border rocket barrages in retaliation for the Nabatiyeh strikes, and a missile attack on a naval base in the southern Israeli city of Ashdod, far from the border.

On Thursday afternoon, the Israeli military issued a warning of incoming strikes for large, densely populated areas of southern Beirut home to major hospitals and the road to the airport, so far without carrying out the threat.

A Western diplomat told AFP on condition of anonymity that "there is ongoing diplomatic pressure... to prevent renewed Israeli airstrikes on Beirut after 'Black Wednesday'".

Transport Minister Fayez Rasamny has said he had "received assurances" from foreign diplomats that the airport and the road there would be spared.

Mohammad Zaatari, director of the country's largest public medical facility, Rafic Hariri Hospital, told AFP: "We have received assurances, including from the International Committee of the Red Cross that the hospital would not be targeted."