The US decision, supported by Britain, to target Houthi locations in Yemen on Friday has generated contrasting perspectives, both of which can be considered valid.
One perspective sees the military action as unavoidable, driven by political considerations and the need to maintain credible deterrence against potential hostile actions by Iran and its proxies. The other viewpoint, likely contributing to initial hesitation, emphasizes the limited probability of success and the potential for an escalation of tensions.
If the strategic objectives involve restoring the free flow of trade through the Red Sea, preventing a regional conflict stemming from the Gaza-Israel situation, and countering Iranian efforts against Israel’s normalization in the Middle East, the recent military action may prove counterproductive.
Success in this context isn’t solely measured by the destruction of targets; rather, it hinges on achieving broader strategic goals. The resilience of the Houthi missile capabilities, honed through years of aerial bombardment, suggests that the recent strikes might not have significantly diminished their capacity. The risk of turning the Red Sea into a war zone could further impact global markets, particularly in terms of oil prices.
The Houthi narrative, portraying themselves as defenders against the “Great Satan” (the US) for the Palestinian cause, aligns with their goal of stoking anti-US sentiment. The potential for the Houthis to respond to the attacks, targeting US and UK interests, raises concerns about further escalation.
Critics argue that the military intervention may play into the hands of Houthi leaders, reinforcing their narrative and inviting more significant US involvement. The perceived threat to world trade from Houthi attacks on shipping is questioned, with suggestions that the economic impact might not have been substantial.
The broader geopolitical context involves efforts by Iran and its allies, including Hezbollah and Hamas, to fuel distrust and animosity towards the US and Israel across the Middle East. The aim is to make any association with these countries politically toxic for leaders in the region, hindering economic and security cooperation.
Public opinion in Arab countries, as reflected in a recent poll, indicates a significant shift against the US and Israel, with a growing perception of them as security threats. The war in Gaza has contributed to this shift, making it challenging for Arab leaders to maintain relations with the US and Israel.
While foreign policy isn’t solely a popularity contest, the dynamics of soft power matter, influencing what Arab leaders can say and do. The recent developments, including Israel facing accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice, are viewed as victories for opponents of the Jewish state.
The counterargument is that previous non-military approaches were ineffective, allowing the Houthis to escalate their attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea. The necessity of protecting global trade routes and countering the growing boldness of Houthi strikes may have driven the decision for military action.