There is growing disquiet over Britain’s response to events in the Red Sea

Editorial: If the prime minister is serious about solving the Houthi threat to the free movement of ships, he should call a Commons vote now – and press for a sustainable ceasefire in Gaza

(Dave Brown)

In his statement to parliament on the latest airstrikes on Houthi forces in Yemen, the prime minister carefully explained the unimpeachable aim of the actions undertaken by American and British forces: to restore the free movement of ships in the Red Sea. The whole world wants to see the return of safe access to this crucial waterway, and thus to the Suez Canal, so that essential food, fuel and other materials can be delivered to those who need them.

Force is also needed to act as a deterrent to Iran – an ally and sponsor of the Houthis – to dissuade it from arming its friends and from taking its own naval action in the Persian Gulf, and thus escalating this conflict by embroiling the Gulf states. Saudi Arabia is only just free of its seven-year involvement in the Yemeni civil war.

Rishi Sunak said that the targeted destruction of the Houthi military infrastructure supporting drone and missile launches was intended to “degrade” the capacity of the Houthis to menace naval and commercial shipping in the Red Sea. He explained, once again, that doing nothing in the face of this aggression would itself be a choice, and an unsustainable one.

He also stressed, as he has done before, that this use of force in self-defence has been endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, and in fact has been welcomed by the legitimate government of Yemen. As if there were any room for doubt, Mr Sunak added: “If necessary, the United Kingdom will not hesitate to respond again in self-defence.”

That, however, is where the clarity begins to blur.

What is the strategy that lies behind these attacks? Does our government regard them as a series of individual actions, each decided upon separately, in response to continued Houthi aggression? Or are they part of a plan? If so, what is that plan? What is the limit to Britain’s involvement?

Why, for example, are the only nations taking an active role in this the US and Britain, albeit with unspecified support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada and the Netherlands? Where, for example, is the French navy? Or that of Turkey? Or India? Is it possible for this campaign to be successful while it is limited to aerial activity? Are there any circumstances in which the allies would put “boots on the ground”? If not, what constitutes success?

That last question is the most critical, and, even if it cannot be answered directly by Mr Sunak or Joe Biden, the truth is that success will be defined by what happens in the Red Sea. Only when the great commercial fleets of the world feel that it is safe enough for them to resume transports though this crucial waterway can the campaign be judged to have achieved its most important objective.

Merely “degrading” the Houthis’ arsenal, which can be replenished by Iran, does not amount to its total destruction and thence the cessation of assaults on ships. It simply means fewer attacks – but reducing the potential for attacks is not going to ensure safe passage for vessels crossing the Red Sea. Mr Sunak himself accepts that there “may be a difference between reducing and eliminating” the Houthis’ capability – a severe understatement. He needs to recognise that reducing the Houthi threat won’t be good enough.

Nor is it merely a philosophical question to ask when a series of what Mr Sunak described last week as “limited, single” actions – but with all options remaining open – becomes in reality a sustained and prolonged campaign; or, indeed, when it evolves into a full-scale war against the Houthis, who are a tough enemy. All Mr Sunak will say, and can say, is this: “I just want to be absolutely clear that no decision has been taken to embark on a sustained campaign. These are limited strikes, specifically in response to threats we perceived.” The question poses itself: how many such “limited strikes” add up to a “sustained campaign”?

There is growing disquiet on the question of what the UK is getting itself into, and on the chances of a return to normality in the Red Sea. At the very least, the prospect of a more protracted intervention, putting British service personnel in the way of danger, requires the consent of the Commons. The present arrangement of patchy consultations with the Labour leader, his front bench colleagues and the speaker of the House is no substitute for a full parliamentary mandate.

The scheduled debate is very welcome, but it should take the form of a binding vote requiring the approval of MPs. Mr Sunak should welcome the idea of such a vote taking place now, because at the moment, his policy commands broad cross-party support, and he really needs to hold on to that if things get more difficult.

The one mistake Mr Sunak did make – as he did with his remarks following the first wave of allied airstrikes – is in his curious assertion that there is no link between the Houthi campaign and the war in Gaza, and that the former is purely a matter of terrorism at sea. Morally, he is right to reject the notion that the Houthis are righteous allies of Hamas – but nonetheless, that is very much how they view themselves, and de-escalation in Gaza is key to preventing this war from spreading out of control.

What is their demand? The Houthis, like Hamas, are demanding a ceasefire in Gaza. Mr Sunak demands a humanitarian pause in hostilities now to allow in aid, and in the longer term wants what he calls a sustainable ceasefire. The Americans also want a pause to allow in aid. The Egyptians and the Qataris are framing just such a deal, involving the release of the remaining Israeli hostages (and other hostages besides them), and of certain Palestinians held by Israel. Such a ceasefire, preferably prolonged, would do much to dissolve the tensions in the Red Sea and see the oil tankers and the container ships back at their work.

A winding down of Israeli military activity in Gaza, along with a willingness by the Netanyahu government to keep the two-state solution on the table, would also be a huge step forward, and would help to create the conditions for a more sustainable peace. It’s not clear that further, indefinite rounds of airstrikes in Yemen would have the same beneficial effect.