Breaking the Bad Houthi Habit
As I mentioned at the opening of yesterday’s Midrats Podcast:
The origin story of the United States of America begins, in no small part, with maritime trade issues. Most of the declared and many of the undeclared wars our nation has fought can be traced to the safety of our maritime commerce and unfettered access to the open seas.
The shores of Tripoli, the Quasi-War, Free Trade and Sailors' Rights, Remember the Maine, the Lusitania, and other operations of various sizes—all these revolve around a simple rule we ask the world,
Seriously, don’t touch our boats.
However, in the almost 18 months since the Houthi rebels have been attacking Western shipping in the Red Sea, we have mostly been playing defense.
Why have we been playing defense? The Biden Administration, like the Obama Administration, was worm-ridden with Iranian accommodationalists. The Houthi, like Hamas and Hezbollah, are Iranian proxies.
After the murder, rape, slaughter, and kidnapping from Gaza into Israel on October 7th, 2023 by Iranian proxies, the Houthi started their campaign of support—as directed by Iran—by attacking shipping in the Red Sea.
It could not be ignored, but we never took the needed action. We did not even do half-measures. At best we did quarter-measures.
The attacks continued and our credibility on the world stage degraded in proportion to that.
As we have discussed often here, we have a few thousand years of dealing with piracy and bad-faith actors on the high seas. It has direct costs in commerce, treasure, and lives.
This cannot be allowed to continue.
Over the weekend, the new Trump Administration put down a marker. We seem to have ratcheted things up a bit. Not much available on open source, but over the weekend, CENTCOM put out a few things;
CENTCOM Forces Launch Large Scale Operation Against Iran-Backed Houthis in Yemen On March 15, U.S. Central Command initiated a series of operations consisting of precision strikes against Iran-backed Houthi targets across Yemen to defend American interests, deter enemies, and restore freedom of navigation.
Nice report via Reuters. The intent from the U.S.A. is fairly clear.
The United States will keep attacking Yemen's Houthis until they end attacks on shipping, the U.S. defense secretary said on Sunday, as the Iran-aligned group signaled it could escalate in response to deadly U.S. strikes the day before.
The airstrikes, which the Houthi-run health ministry said killed at least 53 people, are the biggest U.S. military operation in the Middle East since President Donald Trump took office in January. One U.S. official told Reuters the campaign might continue for weeks.
…
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures": "The minute the Houthis say we'll stop shooting at your ships, we'll stop shooting at your drones. This campaign will end, but until then it will be unrelenting."
"This is about stopping the shooting at assets ... in that critical waterway, to reopen freedom of navigation, which is a core national interest of the United States, and Iran has been enabling the Houthis for far too long," he said. "They better back off."
…
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told CBS News' "Face the Nation" program: "There's no way the ... Houthis would have the ability to do this kind of thing unless they had support from Iran. And so this was a message to Iran: don't keep supporting them, because then you will also be responsible for what they are doing in attacking Navy ships and attacking global shipping."
This will not be easy. The Houthi are tough and stubborn. They have supplies. The goal here should be to eliminate the weapons they have, and in parallel, prevent their resupply.
The response is about what you would expect along the spectrum of impotent to laughable:
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Sunday called for "utmost restraint and a cessation of all military activities" in Yemen and warned new escalation could "fuel cycles of retaliation that may further destabilize Yemen and the region, and pose grave risks to the already dire humanitarian situation in the country,"
…
Hossein Salami, the top commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, said the Houthis made their own decisions.
"We warn our enemies that Iran will respond decisively and destructively if they carry out their threats," he told state media.
…
Houthi leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi said on Sunday that his militants would target U.S. ships in the Red Sea as long as the U.S. continues its attacks on Yemen. "If they continue their aggression, we will continue the escalation," he said in a televised speech.
…
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called Rubio to urge an "immediate cessation of the use of force and the importance for all sides to engage in political dialogue," Moscow said.
Where is all this going? Well, let’s establish a few things first.
Clearly what we were doing was not working.
The Houthi are a 4th rate non-naval power. We like to tell everyone that, though we are the world’s second largest navy, we are the most capable. If we can’t keep the Houthi away from shipping through a major Sea Line of Communication, then why should anyone expect we could do more.
Europe won’t/can’t help. They not only lack the capability to project power ashore against the Houthi to any reasonable measure, they lack the will.
China does not care. It does not impact them. They benefit from this chaos against the West.
Russia thinks this is wonderful.
Iran can’t believe we are letting this go on. The Houthi are the last significant proxy, so they will do all they can to keep them going.
The lines are fairly clear right now. Not much room to maneuver. Looks like we will be at this for awhile. More extended range time.
The Houthi have said they will ban US vessels from navigation of the southern Red Sea, Arabian Sea, and Gulf Aden, and that it will target US Navy ships in response to US airstrikes on Yemen.
US attacks on Yemen on March 15 have claimed 53 lives, according to the Houthi, as US President Trump increased military action to reopen the Red Sea to commercial shipping.
Posting on Truth Social, the US President said: “The Houthis have choked off shipping in one of the most important Waterways of the World, grinding vast swaths of Global Commerce to a halt, and attacking the core principle of Freedom of Navigation up in which International Trade and Commerce depends.”
Where can this elevate to, and where should it go no further?
Attacks should continue until behavior improves. As a USN CVN can do about 72-hours of operations until they need to come off the line and we only have one CVN in the area, we should see this week rest and reflect.
Known Iranian surveillance ships should be escorted out of the Red Sea.
All Houthi ports should come under quarantine. At a minimum, we should benchmark the early-1990s trade embargo on Haiti. Again, that would be the minimum.
Avoid any temptation to go feet dry over Iran proper. We do not need to attack Iran over this. It would only benefit their internal messaging. If Commander’s Intent is to eliminate Houthi threats to shipping in the Red Sea, we don’t have to do anything east of the Yemen-Oman border.
We also need to address the fact that, Econ 101 here people, money if fungible.
A lot of aid is getting into Yemen. How much is getting in to Houthi-controlled Yemen?
During the American Civil War, medical and food supplies were not allowed into Southern ports. Our entire population was to feel the results of the war we started.
Why, if the Houthi are waging a war on the West’s shipping in the Red Sea, should the West pay to feed and care for the population that supports them?
With all the recent evidence of both USAID and UN funds being used to support terrorist entities from Africa to Gaza, you have to wonder how much of these supplies are going in to Houthi-controlled Yemen? Here’s just a sample. Details in the links:
Is it wise to be the logistical tail for the entities attacking you?
Do we have an understanding at the highest levels of government what is actually required to win against hostiles such as the Houthi?
In the halls of Congress, we have a history of wanting to feel, not think. From the time of the first Trump Administration:
U.S. Senators Todd Young (R-Ind.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.), with colleagues Chris Coons (D-Del.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) are asking Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Acting Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development John Barsa to provide details of USAID’s humanitarian aid to Yemen. The conflict in Yemen fuels regional instability and threatens U.S. national security.
On March 27, the Trump administration announced it was cutting nearly all assistance to northern Yemen due to Houthi interference – with the exception of “life-saving” activities. In the wake of Yemen’s first confirmed COVID-19 case on April 10, U.S. humanitarian aid should be re-evaluated to ensure that maximum assistance is available to support effective COVID-19 countermeasures throughout Yemen. The administration has a responsibility to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are benefiting Yemeni civilians, not Houthi forces or their partners. But the administration’s aid suspension has raised more questions than it has answered, and Yemen’s situation is critical.
That was half a decade ago, do they still feel the same way?
When a nation and a people choose violence against others, that is their call. There should be consequences, ugly consequences. That is why nations and people should not choose violence.
Going back to the beginning, we have a few thousand of years written record about how to deal with this problem.
Until the merchant shipping in the Red Sea can sail unmolested, Houthi controlled Yemen:
Should have no central electrical power.
No ships should be able to enter her ports.
No aircraft should be able to land on her airfields.
No bridges should be standing.
If their attacks stop, our attacks will stop.
No need for boots on the ground. No reason for aircraft to go feet dry. No need to wait for significant help from our friends and allies. They lack capability and more importantly, will.
As we have discussed here from the start; precedence matters. Nations and entities should not feel that they can attack shipping, much less American shipping, without an exceptionally disproportional response. Make the cost/benefit of such action clear.
Remember everyone:
CDR Sal, you're on a roll, keep rollin'...(-; Viewed thru the reductionist lens of "you get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish" the campaign you describe has been obvious for years. Years ago, when kidnapping and ransoming diplomats was on the rise, when Russian diplomats were kidnapped, the violent response of the Russian security services convinced the kidnappers to leave Russian diplomats alone. Took us a while (and a new administration) to learn the same lesson. The Biden administration had reasons for acting the way they did towards the Houthis as they choked off the Red Sea. The new administration does not share those reasons, hence, the enactment of the Salamander doctrine is underway. What you describe is the William Tecumseh Sherman approach to war...it's hell, understand that, embrace it, apply force to bring the message home to the government AND the populace, and you may, repeat may, shorten the violence. Stretching things out, "proportional response" only serve to keep the violence going...that is guaranteed, and the opposite of "humanitarian". Very strange that.
Been talking with folks at work about this for a while. We used to board and confiscate Iranian weapons off dozens of dhows - haven't seen anything recently. Yemen is tiny and only has a few suitable ports. It should not be that hard to cut off the incoming weapons. Issue some letters of marque, station mercs on uparmored barges outside the ports and have them inspect every single inbound vessel. No impact on aid, food, etc - but starve the weapon supply. It'd be so much cheaper and more efficient than wasting our ordnance.