Will the clash with the Houthi rebels lead to global conflict?

Would the US and the UK be prepared to put boots on the ground in Yemen (as Boris Johnson proposed)? Will a prolonged air campaign be enough to paralyse the Iran-backed Houthis? There are many difficult questions left to answer over the Middle East’s latest hotspot, warns Kim Sengupta

Rishi Sunak says the action taken was ‘limited, necessary and proportionate ... in self-defence’ (Reuters)

The airstrikes by the US and the UK came after repeated warnings to the Houthis that their attacks on Red Sea shipping would have severe consequences. These had no effect, and 27 vessels have been targeted by the militia in the last two months.

As a result, one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes has become an area of extreme hazard. Global trade declined by 1.3 per cent from November to December. More than 30 per cent of the cargo was diverted around the South African coast, with prices soaring as a result. Freight costs from Asia to northern Europe and North America have more than doubled.

The Houthis appeared to be acting with impunity despite the flotilla of Western warships present in the Gulf. The US continued to forgo launching military strikes over worries that it would lead to the conflict in the Middle East spreading while intensive diplomatic efforts were under way to end the war in Gaza. There were also concerns that an attack would fracture the fragile truce in Yemen – a truce that has been in place since a Saudi-led coalition ended the campaign it was conducting there.

But then, on Tuesday, the Houthis launched what was, at the time, their largest barrage so far, consisting of 21 attack drones along with anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles aimed at American and British naval vessels as well as commercial traffic, in a highly sophisticated operation.

The assault was defeated, with HMS Diamond – a Type 45 destroyer – shooting down seven drones that were heading towards it. The US had retaliated with force against each land attack launched against its bases in Syria and Iraq by Iran-linked militias since the start of the war in Gaza, and pressure was growing within the Biden administration for a similar response to be meted out to the Houthis.

Further impetus for military action came when Iran, the main backer of the Houthis, seized a US-linked oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman. Tehran said this was in response to the seizure of Iranian oil from a tanker in the US last year. But the timing of the raid was seen in Washington and London as another test of Western resolve by Iran and her allies in the “axis of resistance”.

Once the decision was made in Washington – in consultation with London – to carry out the strikes, contingency plans already in place were activated. The US defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, took part in meetings via secure link from the Walter Reed Medical Centre, where he is being treated for prostate cancer. According to US officials, Joe Biden gave the go-ahead for the attack to take place after a UN resolution condemning the Houthi attack was passed.

The US and the UK said that the strikes – carried out on 60 targets in 16 locations – were surgical and aimed at specific military installations. Rishi Sunak said that the action taken had been “limited, necessary and proportionate ... in self-defence”, adding: “We will always stand up for freedom of navigation and the free flow of trade.”

There is, in reality, little else that Washington and London could have done. As the former UK national security adviser, Lord Ricketts, pointed out: “The warnings put out over weeks were ignored by the Houthis. The final straw was the very complex and dangerous attack on the naval taskforce itself a couple of nights ago. I think, at that point, they couldn’t allow this to continue.”

Now that combat has started, what will be the next stage?

There is always the risk of “mission creep”. As General Sir Richard Dannatt, a former head of the British army, said: “One has to hope that this is calculated, based on intelligence, and will be sufficiently surgical and swift to eradicate the problem in the Red Sea, and therefore the emphasis can go back to keeping the Israel-Gaza conflict as contained as possible. The danger is that this will linger, and this will become another zone of conflict across the world.”

The hope that this one set of strikes will cause the Houthis to desist from further dangerous adventurism is unlikely to be fulfilled. Their Supreme Political Council vowed to continue targeting ships, declaring that “all American-British interests have become legitimate targets”.

One of the group’s main commanders, Brigadier General Yahya Saree, said: “American and British enemy bears full responsibility for its criminal aggression against our Yemeni people. This aggression will not go unanswered. The Yemeni armed forces will not hesitate to target sources of threat and all hostile targets.”

When a Saudi-led coalition started its bombing campaigns in 2015 – using Western aircraft and missiles, with the US providing intelligence – we were told that a satisfactory result would be achieved soon, and victory within a year. When the Saudis ended the campaign five years later with a ceasefire, the Houthis were stronger than ever and had seized even more territory in Yemen.

A report by RUSI (the Royal United Services Institute) in London warned that “it may prove difficult for the West to effectively degrade Houthi capabilities”. Adam Clements, a former Pentagon official who was based in Yemen as a US military attache, pointed out that the Houthis “have accumulated years of experience fighting the Saudis, hiding their supplies and mitigating risks”, adding: “They will play what has happened as [their] being victims of Western wars of aggression.”

The spectre of recent Western wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, is still very much present – and the question is just how much appetite there will be for prolonged military engagement by the US and the UK, especially with elections coming up in both countries this year. As well as the obvious risks of becoming involved in such a conflict, a long-term mission in Yemen would mean more damage to Western economies that are already bearing the costs of the Ukraine conflict.

Would a prolonged air campaign be enough against the Houthis?

The Saudis and the UAE sent troops to Yemen, and they took part in several missions. They were eventually withdrawn, following initial successes, after losses began to mount.

Would the US and the UK be prepared to put boots on the ground? The Independent revealed in March 2019 that Mr Johnson, while foreign secretary, had at one stage supported the sending of British troops to Yemen.

The plan was for members of the Royal Marines to take over the port city of Hodeidah, a strategic prize. Tobias Ellwood, then a Foreign Office minister, told me he had drawn up the plan, encouraged by Mr Johnson, two years earlier, its aim being to enforce peace in the area and ensure the flow of humanitarian aid.

The service chiefs – followed by the national security adviser at the time, Sir Mark Sedwill, and a number of commanders – backed the deployment of 3 Commando Brigade. There was also support, said Mr Ellwood, from the US secretary of state, John Kerry. But the then prime minister, Theresa May, vetoed the mission, saying she was worried about public perception of “another Iraq”.

The anger and bitter divisions of the Iraq war appear not to be present right now in respect of the strikes in Yemen – at least in this country. Sir Keir Starmer, who was briefed by the prime minister about the operation, said Labour supported it, but also called for a statement to be made in parliament “at the first opportunity”.

His predecessor as Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said on X (formerly Twitter) that “military action in Yemen by the UK & US government is a reckless act of escalation that will only cause more death and suffering”. He continued: “It is utterly disgraceful that Parliament has not even been consulted. When will we learn from our mistakes and realise that war is not the answer?”

Other voices on the left are protesting against the assault, but there does not appear to be much traction (so far).

Republican politicians in the US, many of whom have been increasingly critical of Mr Biden’s Ukraine policy, voiced their support for the president on Yemen. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell said: “I welcome the US and coalition operations against the Iran-backed Houthi terrorists responsible for violently disrupting international commerce in the Red Sea and attacking American vessels. President Biden’s decision to use military force against these Iranian proxies is overdue.”

Elsewhere, the picture is more complex. Australia, Bahrain, Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, New Zealand and South Korea provided backing for the military operation. France, derided two decades ago as “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” in the US for refusing to back the 2003 invasion of Iraq, has been clear that “the Houthis bear extremely heavy responsibility for the escalating tensions in the region”.

France has its own warship deployed in the Gulf, although it is not part of the US-led coalition. Rear Admiral Emmanuel Slaars, the French commander in the Red Sea region, confirmed, however, that his forces were sharing intelligence with the US and the UK.

The Western backing is similar to the support the US and the UK received in respect of the Afghan war. There was an understanding of cause and consequences: following the 9/11 attacks plotted by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, the Taliban refused to hand him over – leading to their overthrow. The Houthis have ignored many warnings to desist from attacking shipping, thus action had to be taken to protect navigation.

This was distinctly different from the situation in the run-up to the Iraq war, when there was widespread international scepticism of the claims by London and Washington about Saddam Hussein’s supposed arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and few Western partners joined in with the occupation.

Russia and China abstained from the vote on the UN Red Sea resolution. Maria Zakharova, the Kremlin’s foreign ministry spokesperson, charged that the air strikes on Yemen “are another example of the Anglo-Saxons’ perversion of UN Security Council resolutions”, that they showed a “complete disregard for international law”, and that they were “escalating the situation in the region”.

China called on all sides on Friday to prevent the conflict from expanding, saying it is concerned about the escalation of tensions in the Red Sea. There was no outright condemnation of the US or the UK. “We urge the relevant parties to keep calm and exercise restraint to prevent the conflict from expanding,” said foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning.

It is the reaction in the Middle East and the Muslim world which is of particular concern to the US and the UK. Both countries are widely seen to have failed to condemn the Israeli offensive in Gaza, which has claimed around 22,000 lives so far and has also been the subject of street protests.

A number of Arab and Muslim countries joined the US-led ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) in Afghanistan. There is no sign of their joining a Western military coalition on Yemen.

Saudi Arabia extricated itself from its Yemen operation with difficulty – and its territory is within range of Houthi missiles. The Saudis do not want to be drawn into another conflict with Iran. While acknowledging “the importance of maintaining the security and stability of the Red Sea region, as the freedom of navigation in it is an international demand”, the kingdom wanted to emphasise the need for “avoiding escalation”, saying it was monitoring the situation with “great concern”.

Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who vies with Saudi Arabia for Sunni leadership, declared that the US and the UK are “trying to turn the Red Sea into a sea of blood”, adding that “these acts are a disproportionate use of force” and that “Israel also resorts to this disproportionate use of force in Palestine.”

Oman, a strong Western ally, denounced the use of military action by “friendly countries”. Foreign minister Badr Albusaidi said the attack went against his country’s advice and would only add fuel to an extremely dangerous situation. Jordan, another ally, said that the West was at risk of allowing Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu “and his extremist ministers to drag us [in]to a regional war that threatens world peace”.

Washington and London have been careful in their approach to Iran. Peace in the region, and beyond, would be shattered in a direct conflict with the Middle East’s largest Shia power, which has a range of well-armed proxy militias including Hezbollah.

President Biden, announcing the air strikes, was careful not to namecheck Iran. Mr Sunak, too avoided directly blaming Iran, although defence secretary Grant Shapps had said earlier in the week: “Be in no doubt at all, Iran is guiding what is happening there in the Red Sea, providing them [Houthis] not just with equipment to carry out those attacks, but also often with the eyes and ears to allow those attacks to happen.”

It remains the avowed policy of the Biden administration to prevent a wider regional war. US secretary of state Antony Blinken was on a tour of the Middle East to pursue this aim even while the airstrikes were being planned. Washington has reached out to Iran to set out plans for ending the war in Gaza.

Following the strikes on Yemen, the Iranian government said: “We strongly condemn the military attacks carried out this morning by the United States and the United Kingdom on several cities in Yemen. We consider it a clear violation of Yemen’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and a breach of international laws, regulations, and rights. These attacks will only contribute to insecurity and instability in the region.”

There was no threat of military action by Iran. But there has also been no evidence that Tehran will lessen its support for the Houthis, or attempt to curb their use of missiles and drones.

A senior US official, who negotiated with Iran for over a decade, said: “We know the IRGC (Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) are arming Houthis. Iran is also supplying the Houthis with intelligence. But, at the same time, we are trying to defuse tensions in the region, and confronting Iran aggressively isn’t going to help with that. That is the difficult course we have to navigate. Of course we are aware of the pitfalls, but this is the world we are living in.”

Achieving a ceasefire in Gaza, and laying the foundations for a Palestinian state, will significantly calm these tensions, American and British officials acknowledge, making it difficult for the Houthis to maintain that their attacks constitute revenge for what is happening in Gaza.

But the possibility of progress towards a Palestinian state, in particular, seems remote for now. Meanwhile, the US and the UK may well need to continue their attacks on the Houthis in order to secure the Red Sea.

And that brings with it the risk of the law of unintended consequences – the wider conflagration both Washington and London stress they want to avoid.