Washington – The announcement by US President Joe Biden regarding the launch of airstrikes on several locations used by the Houthis in Yemen was not surprising to many experts and commentators who spoke to Al Jazeera Net.
These experts indicated that Washington's attack, particularly after the Congressional Research Service released a study on Thursday, signals a strong reprisal. The research body, which provides well-documented studies to the members of both the House and Senate, mentioned that "in response to Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, the US Navy has deployed multiple warships to intercept those attacks" and formed a multinational coalition known as the "Prosperity Guard", tasked with protecting maritime freedom in the Red Sea region.
On January 3, the White House, along with several of Washington's partners, issued an official warning to the Houthi group, stating that they “will bear responsibility for the consequences if they continue to threaten lives, the global economy, and the free flow of trade in the vital waterways in the region".
The study referred to how "Iran-backed Houthi militia attacks in Yemen on commercial ships passing through the Bab al-Mandab Strait have pressured major shipping companies to suspend or reroute shipments, incurring significant costs." To counter the Houthis' threats, the United States is reportedly contemplating various military options.
Significant Risks
Some members of Congress, including the House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, have urged the American administration to re-list the Houthi group as a "terrorist organization". President Biden had removed the group from the "State Department's list of terrorist organizations" shortly after his term began in January 2021— a list where they were placed by former President Donald Trump's administration. Currently, the Biden administration is considering the possibility of re-listing the Houthis.
In conversation with Al Jazeera Net, the director of the Gulf States Institute, Giorgio Cafiero, perceived Washington's military strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen as "part of the administration's efforts to deter the group from launching more operations in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, while showing that Washington is committed to providing strong support to Israel amidst its war on the Gaza Strip, which has numerous repercussions across the Greater Middle East."
Cafiero highlighted several risks "that the Biden administration will have to contend with" and added, "There is absolutely no guarantee that this will deter the Houthis; it may instead lead to more saboteur-like behavior from their side."
"It will be important to see whether the Houthis target Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in their retaliation," Cafiero explained. He mentioned that the risk of such retaliation is a major reason why the Gulf capitals warn Biden's team against military strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. It will also be crucial to see how such American strikes might affect Saudi-Iranian and Emirati-Iranian relations amid this period of detente between these countries.
George Washington University's specialist in international affairs, Ned Lazarus, also spoke to Al Jazeera Net about Biden administration's fears post the attacks on the Houthis, which include "Washington being actually dragged into a wider regional war, something the administration seeks to avoid by maintaining proportionate military responses following a series of attacks on American forces and interests by Houthis and Iran-sponsored militias in Iraq."
Washington's Dilemma and the Devil's Alternative
Charles Dunn, a former White House and US State Department official, now a scholar at the Arab Institute in Washington and lecturer at George Washington University, talked about the dilemma of attacking and not attacking the Houthis.
Dunn told Al Jazeera Net that "it's a devil’s choice". If the United States doesn't attack the Houthis, their assaults on Red Sea navigation might escalate; however, attacking them may also likely intensify attacks on maritime routes, with a risk of a wider war, not necessarily confined to the Red Sea.
Meanwhile, academic Lazurus argued that since coming to power, the Biden administration has consistently sought to calm the multifaceted, protracted war in Yemen between the Houthis, the internationally recognized Yemeni government, the Saudi-led coalition, and other parties. Thus, another risk lies in the possibility that these attacks could ignite new hostilities, which would undermine progress made on this front.
Furthermore, Lazurus accused Iran of providing key technical support to the Houthis in their recent attacks on international ships, certainly escalating tensions between Iran and the United States, potentially leading to mutual retaliation elsewhere in the region as well.
The continuous Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip, as well as renewed US military disturbances in Syria and Iraq, added to Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping routes, indicate that Washington's desire to reduce its military presence in the Middle East is merely wishful thinking.
It is quite ironic that Presidents Biden, Donald Trump, and Barack Obama all sought to scale down US military involvement in the Middle East, yet the recurrent conflicts persistently draw the United States back in.
Trita Parsi, Vice President at the Quincy Institute in Washington, tweeted about these developments, saying that the most effective way to avoid this escalation is not bombing the Houthis, but securing a ceasefire in Gaza. However, Biden is unlikely to consider that, and instead, is preparing for a regional war.
Furthermore, Michigan Representative Rashida Tlaib, of Palestinian descent, criticized President Biden for bypassing Congress with attacks on the Houthis. In a tweet, she claimed that the American President "violated Article I of the Constitution by executing air strikes in Yemen without Congressional approval, and the American people are weary of endless war."
