Two options for responding to the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea seem to be on the table in the U.S. policy discussion: One, do nothing, or two, strike the Houthis. The first has yielded rising attacks against commercial vessels and an increased demand to defend them. The latter is unlikely to change the Houthis’ behavior. Instead, it’s time to apply the Reagan Doctrine in Yemen, as Ken Pollack and I argued in the Wall Street Journal. But what does that mean?
The idea is similar to what was the American approach to managing the bad behavior of the Gaddafi regime and Libya in the 1980s. Under Gaddafi, Libyans were sponsoring terrorist attacks, hurting American regional partners like Egypt, and attacking neighboring states. And so the United States started actively supporting Libya’s adversaries and Chad, which tipped the scale in favor of Chad, and nearly led to a Chadian invasion of Libya. Gaddafi stopped behaving so badly once this happened. Applying the Reagan Doctrine in Yemen means supporting the Yemeni government and the factions that back it against the Houthis, who seized control of the country almost 10 years ago and set in course the events that led Yemen to collapse into civil war.
Why is just defending the commercial ships from the Houthi attacks, the so-called do nothing option, not what we should do? It’s a victory for the Houthis, and given the already-realized and potential further impact on the global economy, allows a strategic threat to the United States to persist.
Why won’t retaliatory strikes against the Houthis work? For starters, the Houthis are baiting us to take action against them because they will be able to spin a narrative of defending Yemen against the big bad United States. But more practically, the Houthis simply don’t have the major weapons depots or types of targets to strike that will permanently handicap them or cause a shift in their calculus. They and Iran benefit significantly from the ongoing Red Sea shipping attacks. It’s near impossible to identify a military target that they would not simply deem as part of the price they have to pay for their current success.
But the Houthis have shown that they care about power and control. Whenever that has been threatened, they have responded almost immediately. Take 2018, when Emirati-backed Yemeni forces were advancing on [sic] and preparing for an amphibious assault to recapture the port city. The Houthis waved the white flag and went to the U.N. to negotiate a deal that protected their own interests. [Sic] through which the majority of goods enter Yemen is incredibly important to the Houthis. They outmaneuvered negotiators and walked away with their control of the city intact and a deal that has yet to be implemented to this day. And they reacted similarly in early 2022, when Yemeni forces made gains against them. The Houthis announced a unilateral ceasefire and then agreed to a two-month truce that they then repeatedly extended, all the while continuing to prepare for war.
U.S. military support to the Yemeni government does not mean Americans fighting the war against the Houthis. But it means tipping the balance of power against them by providing Yemeni factions with better intelligence and capabilities to fight their own war and to win against the Houthis. Threatening what the Houthis value is a strategy that could work.
Related
Katherine Zimmerman
Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
View Video LibraryCommentary
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
How could RFK Jr. impact 2024 election?
Friday
Peter Zeihan
Global warming won’t impact Russian-Chinese shipping
Thursday
Peter Zeihan
Can other nations replicate success of US shale revolution?
Wednesday
Peter Zeihan
Peace between Israel and Iran, at least for now
Tuesday
Peter Zeihan
US should help Yemen fight Houthis
Jan 18
By Straight Arrow News
Recent Houthi attacks on U.S. Navy vessels and U.S. counter-strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen have triggered a foreign policy debate on how the United States should proceed and on whether a larger U.S.-Houthi conflict might be imminent. Houthi leaders say that their aim is to impede Israeli trade and shipping, even though many of the vessels targeted have no apparent Israeli affiliation. Meanwhile, the United States has already begun assembling an international maritime alliance to guarantee the safe passage of ships through the Red Sea, and the U.S. and U.K. have already struck 60 Houthi targets inside Yemen.
Straight Arrow News contributor Katherine Zimmerman discusses the different options that the United States has in how it plans to address the Houthi threat. In the end, she recommends applying a policy that was successful several decades ago against another rogue actor, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi.
Two options for responding to the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea seem to be on the table in the U.S. policy discussion. One, do nothing, or two, strike the Houthis. The first has yielded rising attacks against commercial vessels and an increased demand to defend them. The latter is unlikely to change the Houthis’ behavior. Instead, it’s time to apply the Reagan Doctrine in Yemen, as Ken Pollack and I argued in the Wall Street Journal. But what does that mean?
The idea is similar to what was the American approach to managing the bad behavior of the Gaddafi regime and Libya in the 1980s. Under Gaddafi, Libyans were sponsoring terrorist attacks, hurting American regional partners like Egypt, and attacking neighboring states. And so, the United States started actively supporting Libya’s adversaries and Chad, which tipped the scale in favor of Chad and nearly led to a Chadian invasion of Libya. Gaddafi stopped behaving so badly once this happened. Applying the Reagan Doctrine in Yemen means supporting the Yemeni government and the factions that back it against the Houthis, who seized control of the country almost 10 years ago and set in course the events that led Yemen to collapse into civil war.
Why is just defending the commercial ships from the Houthi attacks, the so-called do nothing option, not what we should do? It’s a victory for the Houthis, and given the already-realized and potential further impact on the global economy, allows a strategic threat to the United States to persist.
Why won’t retaliatory strikes against the Houthis work? For starters, the Houthis are baiting us to take action against them because they will be able to spin a narrative of defending Yemen against the big bad United States. But more practically, the Houthis simply don’t have the major weapons depots or types of targets to strike that will permanently handicap them or cause a shift in their calculus.
Two options for responding to the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea seem to be on the table in the U.S. policy discussion: One, do nothing, or two, strike the Houthis. The first has yielded rising attacks against commercial vessels and an increased demand to defend them. The latter is unlikely to change the Houthis’ behavior. Instead, it’s time to apply the Reagan Doctrine in Yemen, as Ken Pollack and I argued in the Wall Street Journal. But what does that mean?
The idea is similar to what was the American approach to managing the bad behavior of the Gaddafi regime and Libya in the 1980s. Under Gaddafi, Libyans were sponsoring terrorist attacks, hurting American regional partners like Egypt, and attacking neighboring states. And so the United States started actively supporting Libya’s adversaries and Chad, which tipped the scale in favor of Chad, and nearly led to a Chadian invasion of Libya. Gaddafi stopped behaving so badly once this happened. Applying the Reagan Doctrine in Yemen means supporting the Yemeni government and the factions that back it against the Houthis, who seized control of the country almost 10 years ago and set in course the events that led Yemen to collapse into civil war.
Why is just defending the commercial ships from the Houthi attacks, the so-called do nothing option, not what we should do? It’s a victory for the Houthis, and given the already-realized and potential further impact on the global economy, allows a strategic threat to the United States to persist.
Why won’t retaliatory strikes against the Houthis work? For starters, the Houthis are baiting us to take action against them because they will be able to spin a narrative of defending Yemen against the big bad United States. But more practically, the Houthis simply don’t have the major weapons depots or types of targets to strike that will permanently handicap them or cause a shift in their calculus. They and Iran benefit significantly from the ongoing Red Sea shipping attacks. It’s near impossible to identify a military target that they would not simply deem as part of the price they have to pay for their current success.
But the Houthis have shown that they care about power and control. Whenever that has been threatened, they have responded almost immediately. Take 2018, when Emirati-backed Yemeni forces were advancing on [sic] and preparing for an amphibious assault to recapture the port city. The Houthis waved the white flag and went to the U.N. to negotiate a deal that protected their own interests. [Sic] through which the majority of goods enter Yemen is incredibly important to the Houthis. They outmaneuvered negotiators and walked away with their control of the city intact and a deal that has yet to be implemented to this day. And they reacted similarly in early 2022, when Yemeni forces made gains against them. The Houthis announced a unilateral ceasefire and then agreed to a two-month truce that they then repeatedly extended, all the while continuing to prepare for war.
U.S. military support to the Yemeni government does not mean Americans fighting the war against the Houthis. But it means tipping the balance of power against them by providing Yemeni factions with better intelligence and capabilities to fight their own war and to win against the Houthis. Threatening what the Houthis value is a strategy that could work.
Related
US should help Yemen fight Houthis
Recent Houthi attacks on U.S. Navy vessels and U.S. counter-strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen have triggered a foreign policy debate on how the United States should proceed and on whether a larger U.S.-Houthi conflict might be imminent. Houthi leaders say that their aim is to impede Israeli trade and shipping, even though many of…
Jan 18
US must respond to threat from Iran-backed Houthis
Last month, the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force told the head of Hamas’ military wing that Iran will do “whatever it takes” to support them in its war with Israel. Meanwhile, the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen intensified attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea, prompting U.S. warships to shoot…
Dec 7
US, Israeli counterterrorism policy must adjust after Hamas attack
Revered Israeli and U.S. intelligence agencies failed to detect the signs of an imminent Hamas attack on Israeli villages near the Gaza Strip. The surprise attack was planned within Hamas’s military wing and highlights both Israel’s intelligence blind spots as well as Hamas’s use of “old-school techniques” like in-person communication. Straight Arrow News contributor Katherine…
Oct 26
US must sustain pressure against al-Qaeda
The United States and its allies have severely reduced the capacity for al-Qaeda, the terrorist group behind the 9/11 attacks, to organize or carry out any large-scale terrorist attacks against the U.S. homeland. Recent U.S. intelligence assessments suggest al-Qaeda is weaker than ever in Afghanistan, while experts and international observers continue to warn that al-Qaeda is…
Oct 12
African coups demand US policy changes
A string of recent military coups toppling governments in the African Sahel, from Guinea to Sudan, poses new risks and challenges to the United States. France, formerly a key ally in African security affairs, has also massively reduced its forces on the continent, at times being chased out by pro-Moscow forces. Straight Arrow News contributor…
Sep 15
Underreported stories from each side
Biden’s 13th-Quarter Approval Average Lowest Historically
8 sources | 13% from the left
AP Images
Jamie Raskin Slams Supreme Court Over Trump Immunity Case: ‘Acting Like A Bunch Of Partisan Operatives’
6 sources | 0% from the right
AP Images
Latest Stories
Biden uses NFL draft ad to try to connect with young voters
Watch 2:16
Yesterday
Powering pot: Energy for US cannabis industry could electrify 13.5M homes
Watch 1:29
Yesterday
Allies plan for Trump to have more control over interest rates
Watch 3:07
Yesterday
FDA: Bird flu found in 1/5 commercial milk samples, suggests greater spread
Watch 1:21
Yesterday
China permanently deploys warships to second overseas base
Watch 2:58
Yesterday
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
House Speaker Johnson’s foreign aid bill shows a focused GOP
Friday
Star Parker
Trump’s own behavior betrays his guilt
Friday
Dr. Rashad Richey
Portraying far-left and far-right as equal in ‘Civil War’ is wrong
Thursday
Jordan Reid
Who will Trump pick for vice presidential running mate?
Thursday
Matthew Continetti