The US-British strikes on the Houthis in response to their disruption of maritime navigation were predictable and inevitable. Rather, they had been so since the Houthis took control of Sanaa and insisted on behaving like a militia, not a political party that shares power with others, like the other Yemeni parties.
It was predictable and inevitable because the United States and Britain, along with other European countries, were not serious enough in dealing with the Houthis and addressing their actions in Yemen from the beginning. If Washington and its allies in European capitals had been serious, things would not have gone this far.
Washington and its European allies were absolutely opportunistic in dealing with the Houthis, considering it a domestic Yemeni problem, and the United States and European countries even pointed the finger at regional actors, specifically Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Washington and its allies pushed endless lies about human rights, and they were supported by some international organizations. The oversimplification was astonishing, until today. We have reached a stage in which Washington and its allies are fighting the Houthis, which the Biden administration had removed from the terrorist list.
The US administration is not the only one responsible. Indeed, American media outlets also promoted lies, with the veneer of human rights, about the countries of the region, particularly Saudi Arabia. The Washington Post even published an article by Mohammed Ali al-Houthi in 2018 under the headline "We Want Peace".
Today, after everything that has happened, Washington and its allies are talking about Iranian support for the Houthis once again. After having overlooked that support for a long time, they are carrying out airstrikes against the Houthis, and Washington says that these strikes will continue if the Houthis continue to threaten maritime navigation.
It is not important today whether these strikes against the Houthis are effective or not, as that is not the debate here. The point is that these strikes represent a blow to the credibility of the United States and Europe’s strategy for our region, especially their approach to dealing with the militias that have destroyed several Arab countries.
Here, a question to Washington and the West in general poses itself: is their relationship with the region strategic or tactical? The militia threat is real, and Tehran's use of militias is not a tactic but a fully-fledged strategy.
Therefore, the United States and Europeans must adopt a strategic stance regarding the militias, instead of using them as pawns to undermine rivals and extort the region, sometimes in the name of minority rights and at others in the name of human rights, which we have seen not a trace of in Israel’s war on Gaza.
The matter goes beyond the Houthis, who are assumed to be close to signing a peace agreement that ends the conflict in Yemen. The question applies to all the militias from Iraq to Lebanon, from Syria to Yemen, and to Gaza, all of which are either Iranian militias or militias funded by Tehran. The credibility of the United States and Europe is in question today. Just look at the reporting of regional media outlets or what people are saying on social media. That is all you have to do to understand the damage to the credibility of Washington and its Western allies, though this of course does not imply sympathizing with the Houthis and those like them.
In conclusion, Washington and its European allies must now inform us of their stances after having bombed the Houthi. Does this strike reflect a new strategic position vis a vis all the militias in the region? Or was it just a reaction that lacks a comprehensive vision for what follows the strike?
