Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1875831082-scaled

Biden to lift the wrongheaded Houthi terrorist designation — but what's next?

There must be a commitment to bringing the insurgents to the table — and stopping foreign support for warring parties.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

On Friday night, the Biden administration announced that it would lift the designation of the Houthi movement as a foreign terrorist organization, reversing one of the Trump administration’s final acts.

The decision was welcomed by aid groups, which had condemned the designation as likely to precipitate the world’s worst famine in 40 years. Martin Griffiths, the UN Special Envoy for Yemen, worried that designating the Houthis as terrorists would also hamstring his efforts to negotiate an end to the long-running conflict.

The Houthis, known formally as Ansar Allah, have committed atrocities during the horrific war in Yemen, as have all the other parties involved. Yet their designation as a foreign terrorist organization was rushed and apparently ill-considered, as the Houthis do not meet the official criteria for designation. The Trump administration had made a habit out of  imposing or lifting such designations for political purposes, such as removing the designation on Sudan following its normalization with Israel and returning Cuba to the terrorism sponsor list nine days before Biden’s inauguration.

Friday’s announcement was condemned on Twitter with suspiciously repetitive tweets and hashtags, suggesting the mobilization of bots, possibly at the behest of Saudi Arabia. One of the hashtags #StopHouthiTerrorismInYemen included English text, as well as a meaningless series of five characters, possibly intended to evade Twitter algorithms intended to prevent bot armies from flooding the platform with identical tweets.

[Following publication of this article, Twitter users reached out to confirm their use of the random characters in tweets in order to draw attention to what they view as the white-washing of Houthi atrocities in English language media.]

Yemenis displaced by the Houthis, as well as many in the south, fear that the move will further empower the group’s position in eventual negotiations. The Houthis have engaged in horrific acts of violence and torture, laid countless landmines, and forced thousands to flee their homes. The Houthis are essentially using the Yemeni population under their control — approximately 20 million people — as hostages. Biden’s efforts are intended to save the population from the violence inflicted from the air by Saudi Arabia, whose six-year-old bombing campaign has destroyed much of the country’s infrastructure, as well as on the ground where millions face severe malnutrition bordering on starvation and disease — problems exacerbated by Houthi indifference, yet even worse by their designation as terrorists. Lifting the terrorism designation may help to prevent a famine, but it will not help to end Yemen’s civil war.

In addition to the looming threat of famine, another major concern is the FSO Safer, an oil tanker rotting off the coast of Yemen, with 48 million tons of oil about to spill into the Red Sea. An oil spill of this magnitude threatens not only further devastate Yemen’s coastal communities, but also destroy coral reefs and fish habitats off the coasts of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, and Djibouti. 

The United States has little leverage over the Houthis, and some fear that, by lifting the FTO designation, Biden has given the group an easy win without acquiring anything in return. This interpretation is flawed. At present, tens of thousands of Yemenis are dying of starvation and preventable disease. The most urgent priority is to provide aid. Lifting the FTO designation allows aid organizations to re-engage with the Houthis without fear of legal repercussions for engaging with terrorists. Although humanitarian exceptions were granted when the Trump administration added the Houthis to the terrorism list on January 19, such exemptions have proved inadequate in other contexts, such as Iran.

Having reversed the worst of Trump’s policies, Biden must now tackle those of the Obama administration, namely providing various forms of logistical and intelligence support to Saudi-led coalition that intervened in Yemen’s civil war in 2015 when the Houthis, who are based in the north, took over the country’s capital, Sana’a Stopping the flow of foreign funding from the UAE to the Southern Transitional Council (STC) and from Saudi Arabia to the Hadi government is critical to shifting the incentives of these warring factions and convincing them that a negotiated settlement is in their interest. The more difficult task is establishing a working relationship with Iran in order to pressure it to withdraw its own support for the Houthis. 

The most difficult aspect is likely to be convincing the Houthis to accept a political settlement. The Houthis feel they have the upper hand in the war and have few reasons to stop fighting now. The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project identified the city of Marib as a crucial location to watch for additional conflict. Marib is east of Sana’a and the current refuge for hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people who fled the capital region to escape Houthi violence and control. The frontlines are only a few miles from the city, and, if Marib is captured, the Houthis will hold almost all major urban centers in the former North Yemen, further consolidating their power.

Ideally, the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iran, and the international community will agree to end support for their respective warring parties and commit to funding the reconstruction of Yemen, while internal Yemeni actors negotiate an inclusive political settlement. Biden’s moves to ameliorate the situation in Yemen are commendable, but must be only the beginning.


Soldiers in the fight against the Houthis, Taiz City, Yemen, 2016. (Shutterstock/akramalrasny)
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: Afghan Taliban fighters patrol near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in Spin Boldak, Kandahar Province, following exchanges of fire between Pakistani and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, October 15, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer

What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means

QiOSK

Pakistan’s airstrikes on Kabul and Kandahar over the last 24 hours are nothing new. Islamabad has carried out strikes inside Afghanistan several times since the Taliban’s return to power. Pakistan claimed that the Afghan Taliban used drones to conduct strikes in Pakistan.

What distinguishes this latest episode is the rhetorical escalation, with Pakistani officials openly referring to the action as “open war.” While the language grabbed international headlines, it is best understood as part of a managed escalation designed to signal resolve without crossing red lines that would make de-escalation impossible.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.