In the complex landscape of Yemen, past U.S. strategies have been met with limited success, prompting calls for a significant reset in American policy toward the Houthis.
While Democrats initially supported Saudi airstrikes, they later opposed them, mirroring President Donald Trump’s shifting approach involving sanctions and designating the Houthis as terrorists. President Joe Biden’s subsequent reversal further complicated matters, and Trump’s attempts at bombing the Houthis, followed by a unilateral ceasefire, did not yield the desired stability.
The United Nations has often preferred illusion over reality regarding Yemen, with key members like Russia and China seemingly favoring the Houthis at the expense of Western interests. As the Houthis escalate their threats by attacking international shipping and targeting Israel, it has become increasingly clear that the U.S. must adopt a new stance.
A recent visit to Yemen revealed a yearning among locals for more effective anti-Houthi strategies, suggesting that Washington’s policy must be grounded in the realities they face rather than the perspectives of distant diplomats. Critics highlight the choice of U.S. Embassy placement as misguided, comparing it to placing a diplomatic mission in Belarus amid ongoing tensions in Ukraine.
To effectively counter the Houthis, the international community must prioritize stopping their resupply routes. The 2018 Stockholm Agreement was intended to control the Port of Hudaydah but ultimately failed to prevent weapon shipments, creating an illusion of oversight while allowing the Houthis to maintain control. Closing the Hudaydah port permanently, or even destroying it, could significantly reduce the flow of arms to the Houthis.
Past negotiations were heavily influenced by fears of starvation, resulting in agreements that favored Houthi operations instead of containing them. As aid struggles to reach those in need, it is imperative to reroute all support through Aden, which could facilitate more strategic distribution across Yemen.
There is also a pressing need to reconsider the role of the Presidential Leadership Council, particularly the influence of Islah, Yemen’s Muslim Brotherhood faction. Critics argue that Islah acts as a destabilizing force rather than a reliable partner against the Houthis and suggest it should be designated as a Foreign Terror Organization due to its ties with various militant groups.
Existing tensions between northern and southern Yemeni factions complicate the situation further. Northern parties often focus on undermining their southern counterparts rather than fostering unity against the Houthis, stunting development and leaving governments ineffective. The presence of officials like Minister of Information Moammar Al Eryani and Minister of Interior Ibrahim Haidan, who do not actively participate in Yemen’s governance, raises questions about the legitimacy of the current leadership structure.
A practical solution may lie in recognizing the right of various Yemeni provinces to govern themselves. The Southern Transitional Council could effectively manage South Yemen, while northern Yemenis could establish their government elsewhere, allowing each region to focus on local governance without external interference.
Should South Yemen decide on independence, it may be more stabilizing than continued forced unity, especially given the region’s historical context and distinct cultural identity.
Moreover, it is critical to acknowledge that Iran is not the only nation supporting the Houthis. Oman is also strategically aiding the group to neutralize southern rivals, while Saudi Arabia seems more interested in maintaining Yemen’s turmoil to prevent any advantages for its Emirati rivals. Holding Oman and Saudi Arabia accountable for their actions will be essential in prioritizing the defeat of the Houthis.
As this geopolitical drama continues to unfold, the need for effective, realistic, and collaborative approaches becomes increasingly urgent if lasting stability in Yemen is to be achieved.
image source from：aei
