Follow us on social

google cta
Yemen strikes

Officials: US 'open' to supporting a Yemen ground operation

American private contractors, meanwhile, are giving factions there advice

Reporting | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

Amid its persistent, so-far largely ineffective aerial campaign against Yemen’s Houthis, the U.S. may now move to support Yemen’s internationally recognized government in a ground operation against them.

Indeed, the WSJ reported yesterday that the “U.S. is open to supporting a ground operation by local forces” in Yemen. U.S. officials told the WSJ, however, that the U.S. hasn’t finalized a decision to do so, nor is it leading relevant ground operation talks. However, the paper reported that American private contractors are providing advice to Yemeni factions.

Speculation of some sort of anti-Houthi ground campaign in Yemen has bubbled up for weeks, sparking fears that the country’s civil war, made dormant by a 2022 ceasefire that largely held after its lapse months later, could reignite.

CNN reported on April 6, for example, that Yemen ground operation preparations were underway, and could “involve Saudi and US naval support in an attempt to retake the port of Hodeidah." And Aida Chavez previously reported in the Intercept on March 17 that “U.S.-backed proxy forces in Yemen are likely to restart their ground operations against the Houthis — proxies that will almost certainly be receiving U.S. intelligence and other support."

“The idea that Trump may provide U.S. support to reignite this civil war is horrifying, because it will be extremely bloody,” Dr. Annelle Sheline, Research Fellow in the Middle East program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Responsible Statecraft.

“Such a war would further immiserate the Yemeni population, already the poorest in the Middle East. In 2018, the UN declared Yemen to be the world's worst humanitarian crisis, with 22 million people at risk of starvation due to the war. Restarting the civil war would again put millions of people at risk of famine,” she said.

Publicly, U.S. officials have remained tight-lipped on possible involvement in on-the-ground operations in Yemen.

“I can't talk about that stuff from the podium, but we have ways of conducting sensitive site exploitations without ground troops on the ground,” Sean Parnell, United States Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs and Chief Pentagon Spokesman, said about possible U.S. involvement in ground operations in Yemen during a March 17 Pentagon press briefing.

Asked early last week about possible U.S. support for a ground operation in Yemen, likewise, a defense official told Responsible Statecraft on background that details surrounding possible future operations could not be disclosed “due to operational security to ensure the safety and security of…service members.”

The DoD and CENTCOM public affairs did not respond to requests for comment regarding yesterday’s WSJ reporting.

Possible U.S. assistance in a new Aden-led ground campaign may not only be deadly; if previous involvement in Yemen is of any indication, it may well prove ineffective.

"Under Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden, the U.S. provided significant support to the Saudi-led coalition that fought a war to oust the Houthis from 2015 to 2022,” Sheline explained. “Even with a massive air campaign as well as a ground invasion led by the Saudis and UAE in southern Yemen, the anti-Houthi coalition was unsuccessful, partly due to the infighting among the Yemeni members, who beyond their antipathy towards the Houthis, agreed on little else.”

If the U.S. wants the Houthis’ Red Sea ship attacks to stop, rather, they might take the Houthis’ stated objectives for their attacks — namely, pressuring Israel to end its onslaught of Gaza — into account.

“The Houthis have consistently said that they will end their attacks on ships traversing the Red Sea when Israel ends its war on Gaza. During the period of the ceasefire from mid January to early March, the Houthis upheld this commitment and did not attack ships,” Sheline explained.

“It was only after Israel violated the ceasefire by preventing any aid from entering Gaza after March 2 that the Houthis declared that they would again attack Israeli ships, and subsequently, the Trump administration bombed them (as people may recall from Signalgate).”


Top Image Credit: A fighter plane takes off, said to be, for an operation against the Yemen's Houthis at an unidentified location in this screengrab taken from a handout video released on March 18, 2025. US CENTCOM via X/Handout via REUTERS
google cta
Reporting | QiOSK
United Nations
Monitors at the United Nations General Assembly hall display the results of a vote on a resolution condemning the annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russia, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., October 12, 2022. REUTERS/David 'Dee' Delgado||

We're burying the rules based order. But what's next?

Global Crises

In a Davos speech widely praised for its intellectual rigor and willingness to confront established truths, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney finally laid the fiction of the “rules-based international order” to rest.

The “rules-based order” — or RBIO — was never a neutral description of the post-World War II system of international law and multilateral institutions. Rather, it was a discourse born out of insecurity over the West’s decline and unwillingness to share power. Aimed at preserving the power structures of the past by shaping the norms and standards of the future, the RBIO was invariably something that needed to be “defended” against those who were accused of opposing it, rather than an inclusive system that governed relations between all states.

keep readingShow less
china trump
President Donald Trump announces the creation of a critical minerals reserve during an event in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC on Monday, February 2, 2026. Trump announced the creation of “Project Vault,” a rare earth stockpile to lower reliance on China for rare earths and other resources. Photo by Bonnie Cash/Pool/Sipa USA

Trump vs. his China hawks

Asia-Pacific

In the year since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, China hawks have started to panic. Leading lights on U.S. policy toward Beijing now warn that Trump is “barreling toward a bad bargain” with the Chinese Communist Party. Matthew Pottinger, a key architect of Trump’s China policy in his first term, argues that the president has put Beijing in a “sweet spot” through his “baffling” policy decisions.

Even some congressional Republicans have criticized Trump’s approach, particularly following his decision in December to allow the sale of powerful Nvidia AI chips to China. “The CCP will use these highly advanced chips to strengthen its military capabilities and totalitarian surveillance,” argued Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), who chairs the influential Select Committee on Competition with China.

keep readingShow less
Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?
Top image credit: bluestork/shutterstock.com

Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?

Latin America

On January 7, the White House announced its plans to withdraw from 66 international bodies whose work it had deemed inconsistent with U.S. national interests.

While many of these organizations were international in nature, three of them were specific to the Americas — the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, the Pan American Institute of Geography and History, and the U.N.’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. The decision came on the heels of the Dominican Republic postponing the X Summit of the Americas last year following disagreements over who would be invited and ensuing boycotts.

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.