Aletho News

U.S. Continues Strikes on Yemen: Objectives, Criticism, and Alternatives

By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – May 1, 2025

U.S. President Donald Trump has confirmed that the United States will continue missile strikes on Yemen until the Houthis cease their attacks on Israel and ships in the Red Sea.

American officials have baselessly insisted that the attacks, which began on March 15, 2025, have achieved significant success. They claim to have allegedly destroyed personnel linked to the Houthis’ missile capabilities, as well as missile sites and weapons depots. However, many observers doubt the effectiveness of this campaign. While the Trump administration’s strikes have been less restrained than the bombings carried out under Biden, they have failed to eliminate Houthi leaders or undermine their missile production capabilities. Meanwhile, the Houthis continue to strike Israel and Israel-affiliated vessels, clearly demonstrating the limited effectiveness of the U.S. operation in achieving its stated goals.

Risks of Escalation and Humanitarian Consequences 

Many analysts argue that the U.S. should intensify its operation by targeting critical infrastructure tied to the Houthis’ military potential. The recent barbaric bombing of the port of Ras Isa, which killed over 80 civilians, including rescue workers, may signal the start of a new phase. But experts doubt the U.S. can sustain such an operation, which has faced bipartisan criticism for lacking strategic results and for its financial cost—estimated at $1 billion in just two weeks. Some Democratic and Republican lawmakers have also stated that the Yemen operation violates the War Powers Act, which prohibits prolonged overseas military deployments without congressional approval.

Pentagon officials have also expressed concerns over U.S. Central Command’s (CENTCOM) heavy use of long-range Tomahawk missiles in Yemen, warning that this could deplete U.S. stockpiles in the event of a future military confrontation with China.

For their part, the Houthis have a decade of experience enduring massive and sustained bombings—whether from the Saudi-led coalition since 2015 or directly from the U.S. under Biden. Neither side has achieved its primary strategic objectives. Moreover, prolonged strikes could create political pressure on the U.S. due to civilian casualties amid Yemen’s worsening humanitarian crisis. Since the beginning of the month, Trump administration strikes on Yemen have killed at least 160 civilians, including many children.

A Failed Military Approach and Pressure for Quick Results 

The military setbacks, combined with pressure on Washington to deliver quick results, point to another possibility—turning to the Yemeni army. In theory, local ground forces could engage the Houthis on multiple fronts, particularly in coastal provinces, with the goal of degrading the Houthis’ military capabilities in the region and securing Red Sea shipping lanes, including vessels carrying critical supplies for aggressive Israel.

Earlier this month, the Yemeni army’s chief of staff met with the commander of U.S. CENTCOM to discuss joint military objectives and efforts to counter the Houthis. CNN, citing regional diplomatic sources, reported that a ground operation against the Houthis is being prepared in southern Yemen. The coordinated attack would be supported by Saudi and U.S. naval forces and aim to push the Houthis out of the critical port of Hodeidah. According to Yemeni sources, up to 80,000 troops have been mobilized for this purpose.

So far, there has been no official confirmation that a U.S.-backed Yemeni army offensive is in the works. In reality, this option comes with several practical challenges, not least of which are structural issues within the military apparatus of Yemen’s internationally recognized government.

While the official Yemeni army has received significant military support in training and equipment since 2015, including the formation of local militias, it remains weak and ineffective due to outdated pre-war weaponry, limited air defense capabilities, ammunition shortages, and insufficient training and maintenance. Other problems include pay disparities among soldiers from different factions and the prevalence of “ghost soldiers”—names added to payrolls for embezzlement purposes.

The Yemeni army is deeply fragmented, composed not of individual conscripts but of political and tribal factions that often hold conflicting regional, ideological, political, and even foreign allegiances. This is the main reason for poor coordination and the lack of a unified command. A joint security and defense committee was established years ago to reorganize and centralize the armed forces, but key factions—particularly the Southern Transitional Council (STC)—have resisted such efforts, preferring to maintain autonomy.

The situation is further complicated by infighting within the Presidential Leadership Council, lingering separatist sentiments in the STC, and Yemen’s economic devastation after years of civil war. These issues would not only hinder a military campaign against the Houthis but could also derail the UN-backed peace process. Even setting aside these concerns, overcoming structural problems would require extensive military and financial support from regional and international forces, long-term training and equipping, and measures to address gaps in the sanctions regime.

Diplomatic Alternatives 

Reports suggest that U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations also touch on Iran’s role in the Middle East. In this context, Washington may pressure Tehran to convince the Houthis to halt attacks on Israel and Israel-linked ships in the Red Sea. This approach depends on Iran’s level of influence over the Houthis on one hand and progress on other issues—such as Iran’s nuclear program, missile capabilities, and sanctions—on the other.

A deal would benefit both sides. Iran wants to avoid a war that could cost it much of its remaining power and influence—especially after losing most of its military allies in the region—and could potentially lead to regime collapse. The U.S. wants to avoid further draining its military resources in the Middle East, preferring to conserve them for a prolonged conflict with China, which remains the current administration’s top priority. Still, the prospects of a negotiated solution to the Houthi problem remain uncertain, given its entanglement with other critical issues.

Each of the three options discussed has major drawbacks—yet none can be ruled out. The failure of one could lead to another, or two approaches could be pursued simultaneously. In the long run, Houthi attacks will likely stop. The question is how, under what terms, and what impact this will have on Yemen’s broader crisis.

If the Houthis are forced to halt due to a ground offensive, it would strengthen Yemen’s legitimate government, either compelling the Houthis to engage in peace talks or ousting them from Sanaa and restoring the official government. Conversely, if the Houthis relent due to a deal with Iran, it would solidify their control over northern Yemen.

The outcome hinges on whether the U.S. can break the Houthis or force them into peace on American-Israeli terms.

Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Middle East Expert

May 1, 2025 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States, Yemen, Zionism | Leave a comment