Shortly after returning to the White House, Donald Trump wasted no time in re-designating the Houthis as a terrorist organisation. Last week, he escalated his stance by ordering a sustained airstrike campaign against Houthi positions. The strikes targeted leadership figures and weapons depots in Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, as well as in the Saada province and around the port of Hodeidah, resulting in the loss of at least 53 lives, including several children.
Officially, Washington justifies its action as an effort to protect American commercial interests and safeguard freedom of navigation. Conversely, critics argue that the United States is engaging militarily in support of Israel, which is reportedly using the current situation to weaken regional resistance groups and expand its covert military presence in areas such as Yemen’s Socotra Island.
In response, the Houthis attempted to strike the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier twice, albeit denied by U.S. officials. The tit-for-tat escalation between American forces and the Houthis suggests that tensions are far from over. But what exactly is driving Trump’s renewed military campaign? And more critically—where does this end?
A Conflict Beyond the Red Sea
Tensions in the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait are nothing new. A few months after Israel’s war in Gaza on October 7, Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthis have used their military capabilities to project themselves as main actors within the so-called axis of resistance. They targeted vessels traversing the region’s vital maritime corridors. Over the past year, they have attacked more than 100 ships and even managed to sink two—sending a clear message to both Israel and its Western allies by weaponising maritime connectivity.
The economic ramifications have been severe. The Houthi disruptive activities have severely impacted Egypt, costing the country up to $7 billion in lost Suez Canal revenues in 2024 as shipping companies rerouted to avoid potential attacks. Shipping routes through the Red Sea, which once accounted for nearly 12% of global trade, are now fraught with risk, forcing companies to redirect their vessels around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope. The result has been, so far, a surge in risk premiums, soaring shipping costs, and extended delivery times—factors that threaten to reshape global trade flows.
From Biden’s Coalition to Trump’s Go-It-Alone Approach
The U.S. military response to Houthi aggression did not begin with Trump. Under the Biden administration, Washington spearheaded Operation Prosperity Guardian, a multinational coalition designed to counter Houthi attacks. Twenty countries, including ten whose identities remain undisclosed, were involved in the mission, signalling a broad, albeit cautious, international effort. Meanwhile, Europe launched its own response. The European Council recently extended ASPIDES, an EU-led maritime security initiative, for another year. Though imperfect, these coalitionsrepresented a collective approach to the crisis, balancing military deterrence with diplomatic manoeuvring.
Trump, however, is taking a different route. Unlike his predecessor, he has opted for unilateral action, launching a U.S.-only military campaign without seeking allied cooperation. This decision marks a shift in strategy—one that raises critical questions about its long-term viability. Also, Trump’s order raised some internal divisions among prominent Republicans. While some staunchly favour the military operation as a much stronger response than what the Biden administration did, others opt for a more restrained U.S. foreign policy devoid of interventionist tones.
How Far Will Trump Go?
Trump’s return to power has brought a more aggressive, transactional foreign policy, prioritising short-term tactical gains over long-term stability. However, direct military engagement with the Houthis carries substantial risks. The rebels, hardened by years of war and backed by Iran, have demonstrated resilience against past interventions. Their missile and drone capabilities have already threatened oil-rich neighbours like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as in the case of a drone attack by the group in 2022 targeting oil tankers in Dubai and other multiple cross-border strikes against Saudi Arabia since 2015. Further escalation may complicate regional security and threaten these countries as well.
Moreover, Trump’s unilateralism may complicate broader U.S. strategic interests. Without international backing, his campaign risks alienating allies who see diplomacy—not unchecked military force—as the more sustainable solution. If history is any guide, military operations in Yemen have rarely yielded decisive outcomes. The Houthis are not a conventional military force—they are deeply embedded within Yemen’s tribal and political fabric. Airstrikes alone will not neutralise them.
The Elephant in the Room: Iran
Donald Trump has made it clear—both in his social media posts and policy moves—that every military strike against the Houthis carries an implicit warning for Iran. With Hezbollah’s capabilities seriously degraded by sustained Israeli attacks in recent months, the Houthis have emerged as Tehran’s most active regional proxy. Unlike Hezbollah in Lebanon or its Iraqi affiliates, the Houthis have remained relatively insulated from the wider setbacks Iran’s influence network has suffered in recent years. However, Trump’s latest escalation suggests he aims to change that dynamic.
By striking the Houthis, Trump is signalling to Tehran that its last fully operational proxy in the region is now in Washington’s crosshairs. This pressure campaign appears to be part of a broader strategy that extends beyond Yemen’s battlefields. Last week, Trump sent a letter to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, reportedly pressing him to accept a new nuclear deal on U.S. terms and setting a 2-month deadline for kicking the negotiation process. The message was clear: Iran must reconsider its nuclear ambitions, or risk seeing its remaining regional assets systematically dismantled.
Iran, for its part, has responded with defiance. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described Trump’s letter as “threatening,” though Tehran is expected to respond formally in the coming days. If Iran is given credible security assurances—specifically, that neither the U.S. nor Israel will seek to undermine its regime—it may be willing to return to the negotiating table. If not, the Biden-era efforts to revive the nuclear deal could unravel into a full-fledged security dilemma. A nuclear-armed Iran would force Washington into an arms race with Gulf nations eager to develop their own deterrent capabilities, further destabilising an already fragile regional security architecture.
The Way Ahead
By opting for unilateral military action against the Houthis, Trump is not just responding to Red Sea security threats—he is staging a political performance. His goal is twofold: to restore what he sees as America’s eroded deterrence under Biden and to project himself as the sole leader capable of securing global trade routes. The strikes serve a dual purpose—reasserting U.S. dominance over maritime connectivity while sending both direct and indirect signals to Iran, pressuring Tehran into nuclear negotiations on Washington’s terms. Yet, as long as Trump’s campaign remains confined to unilateral aggression, it appears unlikely to deliver a lasting solution. The Houthis have endured years of airstrikes, and their asymmetric warfare tactics make them a perennial irritant rather than a neutralisable threat. Without a broader strategic framework—one that goes beyond military force—the conflict risks devolving into an endless cycle of escalation, with maritime security and regional stability hanging in the balance.
