Reading Time: 5 min.
By Gabriele de Fazio
On March 15th, the president of the United States Donald J. Trump ordered a massive attack on the Houthi-controlled territory of Yemen. The military action was mounted as a massive strike with missiles and air raids launched from the navy ships in the Red Sea. The raids have hit the Houthis outposts in the capital region, Sana’a, unleashing what president Trump called on Truth, its social media, <<a decisive and powerful>> onslaught.
This action didn’t come out of the blue; to understand the reason behind the attack, it’s essential to know who the Houthis are, what happened in the last years and, most importantly, which are the political causes and consequences of this event.
Who are Houthis?
The Houths are a terrorist Shiite militia located in the northern part of Yemen. They came to power in 2014 after the terrible civil war that broke out in the country and managed to take control over the capital in the early stages of the conflict. Since then, the country has remained divided between the Houthis, the official government, and other smaller groups.
The territory controlled by the Houthis is very strategic and allows them to exercise power over the other part of Yemen and the Red Sea, especially over the Bab al-Mandab Strait, one of the most important sea trade routes.
Iran’s Involvement
After their rise, Iran took advantage of the situation and established ties with the militia exploiting the confessional linkage between the two: since then, the Houthis have become a pawn in the Iranian strategy of Middle East destabilization. In fact, Iran used them to attack Saudi oil infrastructures, disrupt commercial traffic through the Red Sea and, in general, to conduct remote attacks against every country perceived as a threat from Tehran.
Actually, there are two elements that have to be considered in this context. First, the Houthis act as an autonomous militia for most of the time: they were born without Iran intervention and established contact with Teheran only after their rise, so the militia chiefs consider themselves as capable to maintain their own agenda and consider Iran just as a close ally and some kind of a sponsor State. Second, their attacks are mostly symbolic and rarely large enough to provoke some kind of real concern: their ballistic capabilities are limited both in range and in technology due to the lack of resources.
But still, something has changed in the last two years. Since the war in Gaza broke out, Houthis have played a major role in the southern theatre of the Middle East. The Houthis immediately expressed support to the Palestinian cause and organized a double front: one against Israel and the other against the Western commercial ships in the Red Sea.
In response to Israel’s harsh retaliation following the events of October 7th, the Houthis launched different attacks against Israel, sometimes coordinating their strikes with Iran itself, minor armed groups in Iraq and Hezbollah-a terrorist militia located in Lebanon and supported by Teheran. On the other side, the Houthis have started to attack the Western ships crossing the Red Sea to express their support to Palestine and to condemn the support of the West to Tel Aviv. For several months, Western shipping companies suspended their travels through the Bab al-Mandab Strait and preferred to rely on air shipping or longer maritime routes around Africa, implying a rise in the costs.
Multiple Interpretations
Houthis capacity to attack Israel and the Western commercial ships cannot be explained without Iran: in fact, the Ayatollah regime has provided to the Yemenite militia both intelligence assistance (to spot the Western ships) and technology support via resources (to build missiles) or with ready-to-use devices, such as suicide drones.
After the Houthis attack against Western commercial ships, the Biden administration responded by organizing an international coalition for a naval defensive operation in the Red Sea with the only purpose of intercepting Houthi’s strikes and ensuring a safe passage for all the commercial ships.
The Trump administration has converted the purpose of the mission: from a defensive approach, he shifted to an aggressive strategy. According to The Donald, the action is justified by the intention to exert coercive pressure on the militia and induce them to halt their attacks, thus restoring a safe passage through the Red Sea.
But this isn’t the only interpretation that could be given to the American action: there are, in fact, many other layers of interpretation. One of these layers, the most superficial one, read the American strike against the Yemenite militia as an action in support of Israel. It’s not a secret that Trump and Netanyahu have close ties, and after the president’s statements about Gaza’s future and the threat against Hamas, it’s easy to imagine some kind of blessing for Israeli’s operations in the area.
A similar interpretation is given for Saudi Arabia: according to this view, the American attack was thought to weaken the Houthi forces and the Iranian influence in the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula. This view might suggest that the attack was intended as a tribute to the Saudi government by the US for the peace talks between Washington and Moscow on the war in Ukraine hosted by Riyadh.
As a third layer, it may be considered the path of an indirect attack against Iran. Since his settlement into the White House, president Trump has threatened Teheran many times and for many reasons. Thus, this strike may serve as a demonstration of force aimed at pressuring Iran. Moreover, considering the alignment of U.S. and Russian interests, it’s conceivable that these indirect attacks on Iran are intended to drive Tehran away from Moscow, which had strengthened ties with Tehran during the Ukraine conflict. The message is clear: Moscow Is not willing to support Iran in case of pacification with the West.