The recent Yemen bombing campaign initiated by the United States raises serious questions about whether this military escalation will spark a new US war in the Middle East. On March 15, 2025, President Donald Trump authorized what he described as a “decisive and powerful” wave of air strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen, citing their attacks on shipping in the Red Sea as justification1. This dramatic escalation represents the most significant US military action in the region since Trump returned to office in January 2025, and has already resulted in dozens of reported casualties2. As the bombings continue and the Houthis vow retaliation, regional tensions have reached a dangerous new threshold, prompting concerns about a potential wider conflict that could engulf multiple nations and further destabilize an already volatile region.
The Current US Military Campaign in Yemen
The current US military campaign in Yemen represents a significant escalation in American involvement in the country’s long-running civil conflict. Beginning on March 15, 2025, US warplanes conducted approximately 40 airstrikes targeting multiple locations across six Houthi-controlled regions2. These strikes have expanded in subsequent days, with fresh attacks reported on March 16 and 18, targeting areas including Saada province (a longtime Houthi stronghold), the Red Sea port city of Hodeidah, and other strategic locations across the country34. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has committed to an “unrelenting” missile campaign, emphasizing that the military action will continue until Houthi hostilities cease4.
The scale of these attacks is substantially greater than previous US military actions in Yemen, which had primarily consisted of limited drone strikes against specific terrorist targets. According to the Houthi-controlled health ministry, the US bombing campaign has resulted in at least 53 fatalities, including five children and two women, with nearly 100 others wounded45. While these figures cannot be independently verified, they suggest significant civilian casualties alongside any military targets that may have been struck.
US officials have stated that the strikes were specifically aimed at Houthi military infrastructure and leadership. National Security Advisor Michael Waltz informed news outlets that Saturday’s airstrikes “targeted multiple Houthi leaders and eliminated them,” though specific names of those allegedly killed have not been publicly confirmed by independent sources4. The US has indicated that this campaign could extend over the coming weeks, suggesting a substantial military commitment rather than a one-time punitive action6.
The stated objective of the US bombing campaign is to halt Houthi attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea. Since late 2023, the Iran-aligned Houthis have conducted over 100 attacks on maritime vessels following the onset of Israel’s conflict with Hamas, claiming they are acting in solidarity with the Palestinian people in Gaza3. These attacks have disrupted international trade routes, resulting in what Trump described as “billions of dollars” in damages and endangering lives1. The US military has been engaged in an expensive initiative to intercept Houthi missiles targeting shipping in this critical waterway3.
The current military campaign follows the US decision earlier in March to formally redesignate the Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). This designation, which was one of President Trump’s first executive orders after returning to office in January, imposes broad sanctions on the group5. While the US Treasury Department has issued six general licenses outlining permitted activities related to the Houthis, including specific agricultural and medical transactions, the designation is expected to have far-reaching effects on Yemen’s humanitarian situation and economy5.
The Houthi Response and Capabilities
The response from Yemen’s Houthi movement to the US bombing campaign has been defiant and threatening. Houthi leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi declared on March 16 that his forces would continue to target American vessels in the Red Sea as long as US attacks on Yemen persist6. “If they continue their aggression, we will continue the escalation,” he asserted in a televised address6. This rhetoric signals a significant shift in Houthi targeting strategy, as they had previously focused primarily on vessels connected to Israel rather than directly challenging US military assets.
The Houthis, who control significant portions of northwestern Yemen including the capital Sanaa, possess substantial military capabilities despite years of conflict7. They have demonstrated the ability to launch sophisticated missile attacks against targets throughout the region, including strikes on shipping more than 1,000 miles from Yemen’s shores. Their arsenal includes ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones, and naval mines, many of which are believed to be supplied or developed with Iranian assistance.
The Digital Dollar Debate: Is America Ready for the Future of Money?
Since March 15, the Houthis have claimed several attacks against US naval ships, including an alleged second attack on the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman in the Red Sea, though these claims have not been independently verified6. A senior Houthi official, Jamal Amer, told Reuters on March 18, “We now perceive that Yemen is at war with the U.S., which grants us the right to defend ourselves by any means necessary,” suggesting that escalation is imminent3.
The Houthi movement has demonstrated remarkable resilience over more than a decade of conflict. Despite facing years of airstrikes from the Saudi-led coalition backed by superior technology and resources, the group has not only survived but expanded its territorial control and military capabilities. This history suggests that a US bombing campaign, even if sustained over weeks or months, may not achieve its stated objective of stopping Houthi attacks on shipping.
The group’s relationship with Iran represents a critical factor in assessing the potential for wider conflict. While the exact nature of Iranian support for the Houthis is debated, it is widely acknowledged that Tehran provides weapons, training, and strategic guidance to the movement12. President Trump has explicitly warned Iran, stating the US would hold it responsible for “every shot fired by the Houthis” and promising dire consequences5. This rhetoric raises the stakes significantly, potentially transforming a conflict with a non-state actor into a direct confrontation with a major regional power.
Historical Context: US Involvement in Yemen
Understanding the current escalation requires examining the longer history of US involvement in Yemen’s complex conflict. The United States has been involved in Yemen’s civil war in various capacities since its outbreak in 2014, when Houthi forces took over the capital city of Sanaa and eventually forced President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi to flee the country7. In March 2015, a coalition led by Saudi Arabia launched a military intervention with the stated aim of restoring the internationally recognized government7.
During the Obama administration, the United States began providing critical support to “sustain” the Saudi Arabian-led intervention, including logistical support, intelligence sharing, and arms sales7. This support expanded during Donald Trump’s first term as president (2017-2021). In 2019, Trump vetoed a bipartisan bill aimed at stopping US support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, demonstrating his administration’s commitment to backing Saudi Arabia despite growing humanitarian concerns7.
The Biden administration, which took office in January 2021, initially signaled a significant policy shift. President Biden vowed to halt US support for “offensive operations” in Yemen, including relevant arms sales7. However, critics noted that US arms sales to the coalition continued throughout his presidency, albeit with certain restrictions.
The current escalation under Trump’s second term represents a dramatic reversal of the Biden administration’s approach, returning to more direct military engagement. This policy whiplash between administrations highlights what some analysts describe as the absence of a coherent US strategy toward Yemen, with terrorism designations and military actions appearing to align more with domestic political priorities than with well-considered responses to the complex crisis5.
The back-and-forth between the Trump and Biden administrations on the designation of the Houthis as a terrorist organization further illustrates this inconsistency. The Trump administration initially designated the Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in January 2021, just before leaving office. The Biden administration reversed this decision shortly after taking power, citing humanitarian concerns. Now, Trump has reimposed the designation, signaling a return to more confrontational policies5.
This historical context reveals that US approaches to Yemen have been characterized by inconsistency and have generally failed to produce lasting solutions to the conflict. Military interventions and support for the Saudi-led coalition have not defeated the Houthis, while diplomatic initiatives have struggled to gain traction. The current escalation raises questions about whether the US has learned from these past experiences or is repeating patterns that have previously led to protracted and inconclusive engagements.
US Strategic Interests in the Region
The current US military intervention in Yemen reflects broader American strategic interests in the Middle East. Understanding these interests is crucial for assessing whether the bombing campaign might evolve into a wider war.
Protection of maritime commerce through the Red Sea represents one of the most immediate US concerns. The Red Sea is a vital shipping lane connecting Europe and North America to Asia via the Suez Canal. Approximately 12% of global trade passes through this waterway, including significant quantities of oil and natural gas. The Houthi attacks have forced many shipping companies to divert vessels around the Cape of Good Hope, adding significant costs and delays to global supply chains3. The US has explicitly cited freedom of navigation as a key justification for its military action4.
The US also maintains strong security relationships with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, which consider the Iran-backed Houthis a significant threat to regional stability. From 2015 to 2019, Saudi Arabia was reportedly the largest importer of US arms, highlighting the economic dimension of this relationship7. By taking direct military action against the Houthis, the Trump administration may be attempting to restore confidence among Gulf allies who perceived the Biden administration’s policies as insufficient support for their security concerns5.
Political Machines APUSH Definition: Influence, Corruption, and Impact on U.S. History
Countering Iranian influence represents another crucial US strategic objective. The Trump administration has consistently adopted a more confrontational stance toward Iran than its predecessor. By targeting the Houthis, the US aims to weaken one component of what some analysts call Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” – a network of allied groups across the region including Hezbollah in Lebanon, various militias in Iraq and Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen5. Trump’s warning that Iran would be held responsible for Houthi actions signals that the conflict in Yemen is being viewed through the lens of broader regional competition with Tehran56.
US support for Israel’s security constitutes a longstanding pillar of American Middle East policy. The Houthi attacks on shipping began in response to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza following the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023. By taking action against the Houthis, the US is indirectly supporting Israel by targeting one of its regional adversaries. It is notable that shortly after the US escalation in Yemen, Israel resumed major bombing in Gaza, suggesting possible coordination between US and Israeli military actions5.
Energy security remains a critical US interest, though less directly connected to Yemen than other factors. While Yemen itself is not a major oil producer, instability in the wider region could affect global energy markets. Moreover, threats to Saudi Arabian oil infrastructure from Houthi missiles and drones have previously demonstrated the potential for Yemen’s conflict to disrupt global energy supplies.
These interlinked strategic interests help explain why the US has chosen to escalate militarily in Yemen at this particular moment. However, they also illustrate the complexity of the situation and the potential for unintended consequences. Actions taken to secure one objective might undermine others, particularly if military escalation leads to wider regional instability or strengthens anti-American sentiment.
Regional Implications and Responses
The US bombing campaign in Yemen has elicited varied responses from regional and international actors, reflecting the complex web of alliances and rivalries that characterize Middle East geopolitics.
Iran, as the primary backer of the Houthi movement, has issued stern warnings in response to the US attacks. Iranian officials have promised “decisive consequences” for any threats, though they have thus far avoided specifying what form such consequences might take6. This measured response suggests that while Iran wishes to signal support for its Yemeni allies, it may be reluctant to engage in direct confrontation with the United States. Nevertheless, the situation creates significant potential for miscalculation, particularly if Iran perceives a need to demonstrate support for the Houthis through increased material assistance or encouragement of attacks by other proxy groups throughout the region.
Saudi Arabia, which has been engaged in military operations against the Houthis since 2015, has not publicly commented on the US strikes. This silence is notable given Saudi Arabia’s central role in Yemen’s conflict. The kingdom had been pursuing a de-escalation strategy with the Houthis since 2022, engaging in direct negotiations facilitated by Oman5. The US bombing campaign potentially complicates these diplomatic efforts, though Saudi Arabia may privately welcome American military action against a group it has long considered a threat to its security.
Russia has urged the United States to cease its strikes on Yemen and engage in dialogue instead6. This position aligns with Russia’s broader stance of opposing US military interventions globally while positioning itself as a defender of state sovereignty and diplomatic solutions. China has similarly called for restraint, emphasizing the need for political settlement of the Yemen crisis2. Both nations likely view the US escalation as an opportunity to enhance their own diplomatic and economic influence in the Middle East by presenting themselves as more reliable partners than the United States.
Israel has not made public statements specifically addressing the US strikes in Yemen. However, the timing of renewed Israeli bombing in Gaza shortly after the US escalation suggests possible coordination between Washington and Tel Aviv5. Israel has long considered Iran’s network of regional proxies, including the Houthis, as a significant threat to its security. The US military action against the Houthis likely aligns with Israeli strategic preferences, particularly given the Houthis’ explicit hostility toward Israel and their stated solidarity with Palestinians1.
The internationally recognized government of Yemen, led by the Presidential Leadership Council, has expressed support for the US bombing campaign, viewing it as strengthening their position against the Houthis. However, this government controls only portions of Yemen’s territory and has limited influence on the ground, where the conflict dynamics are shaped primarily by the actions of the Houthis, tribal groups, and external powers.
Regional organizations such as the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council have issued cautious statements calling for de-escalation while avoiding direct criticism of either the US or the Houthis. This measured approach reflects the complex and often divergent interests of their member states regarding Yemen’s conflict.
The varied regional responses highlight the interconnected nature of conflicts in the Middle East and the potential for escalation in Yemen to trigger reactions elsewhere. The risk of a domino effect, where confrontation in one theater leads to flare-ups in others, represents a significant concern. Particular attention should be paid to Iraq, where Iran-backed militias have previously targeted US forces, and to Lebanon and Syria, where tensions between Israel and Hezbollah remain high.
Escalation Risks: Path to a Wider Conflict?
The current US bombing campaign in Yemen carries significant risks of escalation that could potentially lead to a wider regional conflict. Several factors contribute to this danger.
First, the explicit US warnings to Iran create a direct link between actions in Yemen and the broader US-Iran relationship. By holding Tehran responsible for Houthi attacks, the Trump administration has established a framework where incidents in Yemen could trigger US retaliation against Iran itself56. This dynamic substantially raises the stakes of the conflict and creates potential for miscalculation by all parties. If Iran perceives that it will be targeted regardless of its actual level of control over Houthi decisions, it might calculate that it has little to lose by increasing support for its Yemeni allies or activating other proxy groups across the region.
Second, the Houthis have demonstrated both capability and willingness to strike targets throughout the region. Their ballistic and cruise missiles have previously reached Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, while their attacks on shipping have extended far into the Red Sea3. If the group feels existentially threatened by US bombing, they may escalate by launching more frequent or more destructive attacks against US assets or commercial interests. Such actions could prompt further US military responses, creating a spiral of escalation that would be difficult to contain.
Third, Yemen’s conflict exists within a broader regional context of tensions and proxy warfare. The “Axis of Resistance” led by Iran includes not only the Houthis but also Hezbollah in Lebanon, various militias in Iraq and Syria, and Hamas in Gaza5. These groups have previously demonstrated solidarity with one another, raising the possibility that US action against the Houthis could trigger responses from Iran-aligned groups elsewhere. This interconnectedness creates multiple potential flashpoints that could transform a conflict centered on Yemen into a region-wide confrontation.
Political Division in the United States: Partisan Conflict and Declining Freedoms
Fourth, domestic political considerations in the United States may influence decision-making about further military escalation. The Trump administration has adopted a more hawkish posture toward Iran than its predecessor, and may perceive political benefits in demonstrating strength through military action2. This political calculus could potentially push toward more aggressive responses than strategic considerations alone might warrant.
Historical precedents offer concerning parallels. Previous US military interventions in the Middle East, including in Iraq and Libya, have frequently expanded beyond their initial scope and led to protracted engagements with significant unintended consequences. While Yemen presents different circumstances, the pattern of escalation following initial limited strikes remains a relevant concern.
The redesignation of the Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organization further complicates the situation5. This designation signals a shift away from diplomatic engagement toward more confrontational approaches, potentially making negotiations more difficult at precisely the moment when diplomatic off-ramps are most needed.
Perhaps most alarmingly, the current military escalation occurs against the backdrop of what some analysts describe as a leadership vacuum in regional security architecture. Traditional mechanisms for de-escalation, including diplomatic channels and international organizations, have been weakened by years of regional polarization and declining US diplomatic engagement. This creates an environment where escalatory actions may not be effectively counterbalanced by diplomatic initiatives.
Humanitarian Concerns and Civilian Impact
The humanitarian dimension of the current escalation in Yemen cannot be overstated. Yemen already faces one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises after over a decade of conflict. According to UN estimates, approximately 21.6 million people about two-thirds of Yemen’s population require humanitarian assistance. The country continues to struggle with severe food insecurity, collapsed healthcare systems, and outbreaks of preventable diseases.
The recent US bombing campaign risks exacerbating this already dire situation. According to Houthi-controlled health authorities, at least 53 people have been killed in the strikes, including five children and two women, with nearly 100 others wounded45. While these figures cannot be independently verified, they suggest significant civilian casualties. A Yemeni father identified only as Ahmed told reporters, “I have lived in Sanaa for a decade hearing shelling throughout the years. But I have never experienced anything like this before,” indicating the psychological impact of the intensified bombardment on civilians4.
Beyond immediate casualties, air strikes often damage critical infrastructure necessary for civilian life. Previous bombing campaigns in Yemen have destroyed or damaged hospitals, water treatment facilities, roads, and electrical systems. Such destruction can have cascading effects on public health, as lack of clean water and functioning healthcare facilities contribute to outbreaks of cholera and other preventable diseases. The impact of infrastructure damage is particularly severe in Yemen, where years of conflict have already severely depleted the country’s capacity to maintain essential services.
The designation of the Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organization compounds these humanitarian concerns5. Despite the issuance of general licenses for certain humanitarian activities, the designation is expected to complicate the delivery of aid to areas under Houthi control, where the majority of Yemen’s population lives. Previous experience with similar designations suggests that banks and commercial suppliers often become extremely risk-averse, refusing to process transactions or deliver goods to designated areas even when technically permitted. This “chilling effect” can severely impede humanitarian operations at a time when they are most needed.
Military escalation also threatens to disrupt recent progress toward de-escalation in Yemen. Since 2022, a truce between the Houthis and the Saudi-led coalition had reduced violence and created space for limited humanitarian improvements5. While this truce was imperfect and regularly violated, it represented a step toward reducing civilian suffering. The current US bombing campaign risks undermining this progress and returning Yemen to higher levels of violence.
From an international humanitarian law perspective, all parties to the conflict have obligations to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure. This includes taking all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties and refraining from attacks that would cause disproportionate harm to civilians relative to the anticipated military advantage. The difficulty of distinguishing between military and civilian targets in densely populated areas of Yemen raises serious concerns about compliance with these principles, particularly in a campaign of the scale and intensity currently being conducted.
The humanitarian consequences of the conflict extend beyond Yemen’s borders. The disruption of shipping in the Red Sea due to Houthi attacks has affected global supply chains, potentially impacting food security and access to essential goods in countries far from the immediate conflict zone3. This illustrates how military escalation in Yemen can have far-reaching humanitarian implications that affect vulnerable populations globally.
Diplomatic Alternatives and De-escalation Possibilities
Despite the current military escalation, diplomatic pathways to de-escalation remain available if parties to the conflict are willing to pursue them. These alternatives offer potential routes to addressing underlying issues without risking a wider regional war.
Multilateral diplomatic engagement represents one promising approach. The United Nations has previously facilitated talks between Yemeni parties, including the Houthis and the internationally recognized government. While these efforts have not produced a comprehensive settlement, they have occasionally achieved limited agreements that reduced violence. The UN Special Envoy for Yemen could potentially leverage the current crisis to reinvigorate this process, possibly with expanded participation from regional and international stakeholders.
Regional mediation initiatives offer another potential avenue. Oman has historically played a constructive role as a neutral mediator in Yemen’s conflict, maintaining open channels of communication with the Houthis while preserving positive relations with Saudi Arabia, the United States, and Iran5. Omani-facilitated talks between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis had made progress prior to the current escalation. These channels could be expanded to include discussions about maritime security in the Red Sea, potentially addressing US concerns about shipping attacks without requiring continued military action.
Addressing the underlying causes of the conflict would require engagement with the broader regional context. The Houthis have explicitly linked their attacks on shipping to Israel’s military operations in Gaza35. Progress toward a ceasefire in Gaza might therefore reduce the Houthis’ motivation for continuing maritime attacks, potentially creating space for de-escalation in Yemen. Similarly, broader US-Iran diplomatic engagement could help reduce tensions throughout the region, including in Yemen.
Technical arrangements for maritime security could offer a more immediate path to addressing specific US concerns. International naval patrols, shipping corridor agreements, or deconfliction mechanisms might help protect commercial vessels without requiring continued bombing of mainland Yemen. Such arrangements would require some level of buy-in from the Houthis, but might be achievable through intermediaries if framed as pragmatic measures rather than political concessions.
The Digital Dollar Debate: Is America Ready for the Future of Money?
De-escalation would likely require incentives for all parties. For the Houthis, these might include easing of sanctions, recognition of their role in governance of areas they control, or commitments regarding reconstruction assistance. For the internationally recognized government of Yemen, guarantees of political inclusion and territorial integrity would be essential. For Saudi Arabia, security assurances regarding its border with Yemen would remain a priority. For the United States, verifiable commitments regarding maritime security and limitations on Houthi military capabilities would likely be necessary conditions.
The terrorist designation of the Houthis presents a particular challenge to diplomatic engagement5. History suggests that such designations can create significant obstacles to negotiations, as they limit official contact and reduce flexibility in offering incentives. The United States could consider temporarily suspending certain aspects of the designation to facilitate talks, as has occasionally been done in other contexts.
International pressure from allies and partners could play an important role in encouraging de-escalation. European nations, which have generally favored diplomatic approaches to the Yemen conflict, could use their influence to encourage restraint from all sides. Similarly, regional powers like Saudi Arabia, which has recently pursued its own de-escalation with the Houthis, might privately encourage more measured responses from both the US and the Houthi leadership.
While the current trajectory appears to favor military escalation, history demonstrates that even the most intractable conflicts eventually require diplomatic solutions. Creating and preserving channels for dialogue, even amid heightened tensions, remains essential for eventually achieving sustainable peace in Yemen and preventing a wider regional conflagration.
Conclusion: Assessments and Future Outlook
The question posed at the outset of this analysis whether the Yemen bombing will spark a new US war in the Middle East requires careful consideration of conflicting indicators and complex regional dynamics. While definitive predictions are impossible in such a volatile environment, several factors suggest both the potential for escalation and possible constraints on further military action.
Factors pointing toward potential escalation include the explicit US warnings to Iran, the Houthis’ demonstrated willingness and capability to target American interests, the interconnected nature of regional conflicts, and the Trump administration’s generally hawkish posture toward Iran56. The redesignation of the Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organization signals a shift away from diplomatic engagement, while the stated commitment to an “unrelenting” military campaign suggests a significant US investment in continued operations45. If Houthi attacks on shipping persist despite US bombing, or if Iran becomes more directly involved in supporting such attacks, pressure for expanded military action could grow substantially.
Conversely, several factors may constrain further escalation. Despite their rhetoric, neither the United States nor Iran likely desires a direct military confrontation, which would carry enormous costs for both nations. The Houthis have survived years of bombardment by the Saudi-led coalition, suggesting that even sustained US airstrikes may not achieve their stated objectives, potentially leading to a reassessment of strategy7. Domestic political considerations in the United States, including public wariness of Middle East entanglements following the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, may also limit appetite for a major new military commitment.
The most likely near-term scenario involves continued limited US airstrikes targeting Houthi military capabilities, combined with efforts to build international support for pressure on the group and its Iranian backers. This approach would aim to degrade Houthi capacity to threaten shipping without committing to a larger ground operation or direct confrontation with Iran. However, this scenario still carries significant risks of unintended escalation through miscalculation, particularly if Houthi attacks cause American casualties or if Iranian-backed groups elsewhere in the region become more active in solidarity with Yemen.
A wider regional war remains a concerning possibility rather than a probability at this stage. Such an outcome would likely require a significant trigger event—such as a successful Houthi strike causing major American casualties, direct Iranian involvement in attacks on US forces, or a dramatic escalation between Israel and Hezbollah that draws in American military support. The interconnected nature of these flashpoints means that developments in one area could rapidly affect calculations elsewhere in the region.
Key indicators to monitor in the coming weeks include the frequency and effectiveness of Houthi attacks on shipping despite US bombing, any evidence of increased Iranian material support to the Houthis, activities of Iranian-backed groups in Iraq and Syria targeting US interests, and developments in the Israel-Gaza conflict that might affect regional dynamics35. Diplomatic initiatives, particularly any Saudi or Omani-mediated contacts with the Houthis, would also provide important signals about the potential for de-escalation.
The United States faces difficult choices in Yemen. Military action alone seems unlikely to permanently suppress Houthi maritime attacks without addressing the broader regional context that motivates them25. Yet diplomatic engagement is complicated by the terrorist designation and the challenge of finding acceptable terms for all parties. Threading this needle will require sophisticated statecraft that has often been lacking in US approaches to Yemen’s complex conflict.
In conclusion, while the current US bombing campaign represents a significant escalation with potential to spark wider conflict, multiple factors still constrain the likelihood of a major new US war in the Middle East. Nevertheless, the situation remains highly volatile, with risks of miscalculation and unintended consequences that could rapidly change this assessment. The international community would be well-advised to prioritize diplomatic initiatives alongside any security measures, seeking sustainable solutions to both the immediate maritime security concerns and the underlying dynamics of Yemen’s devastating conflict.
References:
- BBC News: US Strikes in Yemen Raise Regional Tensions
- Xinhua: US Airstrikes Hit Yemen Amid Rising Tensions
- Reuters: At Least 10 US Strikes Target Areas in Yemen
- BBC News: Houthi Response to US Airstrikes in Yemen
- Sana’a Center: The Yemen Conflict and Foreign Military Involvement
- Reuters: Houthis Say They Are Ready to Escalate After US Strikes in Yemen
- Wikipedia: United States Support for Saudi-led Operations in Yemen
- Al Jazeera: Mapping US Attacks on Yemen
