Follow us on social

Houthis

Is Trump poised to double down on Biden's Houthi failures?

The new administration may push for a more aggressive approach, but it won't deter the Houthis

Analysis | Middle East

The ineffective U.S. military campaign against the Houthis in Yemen is now a year old.

Based on new reports, based on two sources in the Jerusalem Post, there are hints that that the incoming Trump administration may be planning to escalate it. The paper says the Biden administration is reportedly planning to intensify the bombings before Jan. 21. Then, according to the Post, Trump will be looking to ramp up the military campaign even more once he is sworn in.

Former Trump administration Iran envoy Elliott Abrams told the Post, “Trump will not stand for having US Navy ships attacked every day by the Houthis using Iranian missiles. … He will hit the Houthis harder, and he will threaten Iran that if a missile [that] Iran supplied kills an American, Iran will get hit directly.”

Trump did not have anything to say about the bombing campaign against the Houthis during his presidential campaign, but escalation in Yemen would be consistent with the general hawkish leanings of his national security team and it would be in line with Trump’s approach to Yemen when he was last in the White House.

Biden’s unauthorized war in Yemen began last January in response to Houthi missile and drone attacks on Red Sea shipping. The Houthis launched their attack as a protest against Israel’s war in Gaza, and they are likely to continue them as long as that war lasts. Unsurprisingly, the bombing campaign has not deterred the Houthis from launching additional attacks on commercial shipping.

Judged on its own terms, the U.S.-led intervention in Yemen has been a failure.

The conflict has received relatively little attention over the last year, but it is still consuming U.S. resources and contributing to the U.S. Navy’s overstretch. U.S. forces struck targets in Yemen again last week. Meanwhile, the Houthis and Israel have continued exchanging blows over the last several months. Israel launched strikes on the international airport in the capital Sanaa and on several ports in late December after another Houthi missile launch into Israeli territory.

In addition to possibly escalating the military campaign, the Trump administration may also place the Houthis back on the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list. When the outgoing Trump administration designated the group in early 2021, the director of the World Food Program at the time, David Beasley, said, “We are struggling now without the designation. With the designation, it's going to be catastrophic.”

The Biden administration removed the group from this list after the United Nations and aid groups warned that the designation would have devastating effects on Yemen’s economy and exacerbate the humanitarian crisis.

Hawkish critics condemned the Biden administration’s removal of the Houthis as “weakness,” and they have been clamoring for redesignation ever since. Trump’s choice for national security adviser, Mike Waltz, has been a vocal advocate of redesignating the Houthis since the first weeks of the war in Gaza.

Now that the U.S. is directly fighting the Houthis, it seems likely that Waltz would be even more adamant in pushing for this change. Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), has also been a proponent of redesignation. Placing the Houthis back on the FTO list would still have all the same severe downsides as before, but Trump and his team may not care about the destructive consequences that designation would have for the people of Yemen.

If Trump believes that redesignation will make him look “tougher” than Biden, that might be all that Waltz and Rubio need to get him to agree.

Congress never debated or voted to authorize a bombing campaign in Yemen. While the Biden administration claims that the president has Article II authority to conduct these operations without congressional approval, there is no real legal justification for keeping U.S. ships engaged in hostilities for a year unless Congress has explicitly authorized it. The lack of authorization is unlikely to matter to the incoming Trump administration. During the first term, Trump presided over unauthorized U.S. involvement in a different military campaign in Yemen, namely the Saudi coalition intervention. When Congress passed a war powers resolution to demand an end to U.S. involvement, he vetoed the measure.

The incoming president had a habit in his first term of escalating the wars he inherited, from Somalia to Yemen to Afghanistan (though he eventually passed a deal with the Taliban to withdraw U.S. troops from that country). Based on his previous disregard for Congress’s role in matters of war, Trump is unlikely to be bothered by the illegality of the war in Yemen.

Escalation in Yemen would be a mistake. It is unlikely to achieve anything except to kill more Yemenis, put U.S. sailors at risk, and waste more expensive munitions. The Houthis have not been discouraged from launching attacks after more than a year of military action, and they are unlikely to respond differently once Trump is in office.

The U.S. ought to be using all its influence and leverage to bring the war in Gaza to an end in order to wind down the wider regional conflict with which it is interwoven. Beyond that, the U.S. should be looking for ways to extract itself from Middle Eastern conflicts rather than finding excuses to expand them.


Top image credit: Houthi fighters parade in Sana a amid tensions with USA and Israel. Houthi fighters parade during a mobilization campaign, in Sana a, Yemen, 18 December 2024.IMAGO/ Sanaa Yemen Copyright: xHamzaxAlix via REUTERS
Analysis | Middle East
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

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.