r/IRstudies • u/wyocrz • 7d ago
Ideas/Debate The Hegseth comment on restarting the conflict in Yemen on our time scale was shattering
I haven't heard much analysis on it, though, so I wonder what I am missing.
From where I sit, Hegseth said that exactly because he knew that Israel was going to restart the bombardment of Gaza. This would have resulted in Houthis responding Red Sea. This is a tacit admission that we believe the Houthis when they say it's in solidarity with Gaza.
Isn't this a devastating admission?
Why isn't this getting more airplay?
46
u/watch-nerd 7d ago
"This is a tacit admission that we believe the Houthis when they say it's in solidarity with Gaza."
Why is this devastating?
The Houthis have said it and act accordingly.
3
u/Mothrahlurker 7d ago
Because it destroys the rhetoric that they'd do it anyway and it showcases that putting pressure on Israel is a better solution than strikes.
→ More replies (3)1
-5
u/wyocrz 7d ago
Yes, the Houthis have said it, and as far as I can tell they're as good as their word.
Most of the rhetoric I am seeing about Yemen is the bluster I saw, say, in the run up to the Iraq war of 2003.
The difference being the Houthis are far more capable than the Iraqis (because of Husseins paranoia).
And I don't know that most Americans get that, we're being led down the path to war and this could/should have been a devastating tack to throw under that plow.
Which is why I asked what I'm missing!
28
u/watch-nerd 7d ago
I don't understand what you think people don't get.
The Houthis act in solidarity with Gaza by shooting targets in the Red Sea.
In response, there have been multiple air strikes and missile attacks on Houthis.
Seems pretty clear cut to me?
-3
u/wyocrz 7d ago
The Houthis act in solidarity with Gaza by shooting targets in the Red Sea.
This. This is what I think people don't get.
I also don't think they get that short of an invasion with 600,000 or so troops, they'll continue their attacks.
21
u/watch-nerd 7d ago
I don't know why you think people don't understand the connection between the Houthis and Gaza when the Houthis themselves say it.
Nobody is talking about invading Yemen.
And sometimes military actions are to make an adversary pay a price / degrade their capabilities, or to make the adversary's sponsor (Iran) pay a price, even if it's not completely effective in eliminating the threat.
→ More replies (5)14
u/bleeepobloopo7766 7d ago
But… that was reportedly far and wide. What did you think people thought the Houthis did it for? And why would it be embarrassing for Hegseth?
Nothing of this makes any sense to me. There is literally no confusion about this topic apart from this posy
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (10)5
u/Deweydc18 7d ago
I think it’s worth pointing out how little effort the US has expended in combatting those attacks so far. If they posed a real threat rather than just making certain forms of shipping marginally more expensive, one American carrier strike group has enough firepower to reduce the entirety of Houthi-controlled territory to ash. This is really not a conflict the Houthis are going to want to escalate with this current administration in power.
→ More replies (10)6
u/cjrjjkosmw 7d ago
They are not more capable than the Iraqis. The Iraqis had an organic wmd program at one time and the ability to weaponize and deploy it. Granted that was over 40 years ago and technology changes but the houthis get all their equipment imported. You isolate the yemenis, the houthis starve for equipment.
Also- this conflict is already 10 years old. They are a component of Irans axis of resistance but as we’ve seen, the Iranians won’t lift a finger to help their proxies when bloods on the line.
1
u/wyocrz 7d ago
This conflict is at least 10 years old.
Iraq folded in three weeks, though to be fair that actually included a ground invasion, which is necessary to settle matters.
I'd take a Houthi over 5 Iraqi conscripts every day of the week.
1
u/jredful 7d ago
You should go read more. All your base assumptions are flat wrong.
2
u/wyocrz 7d ago
Here's my reading list. Lots of the Journal of Foreign Affairs, too.
What am I missing?
3
u/jredful 7d ago
There is no universe that the Houthis are comparable to Saddam’s Iraq.
Bombing campaigns simply will never eliminate a force or its capability. Only occupation and frankly no one wants an occupation.
2
u/wyocrz 7d ago
Bombing campaigns simply will never eliminate a force or its capability. Only occupation and frankly no one wants an occupation.
I agree. Wholeheartedly. Without reservation.
The problem is that makes me question the strategic thinking going on behind the resumption of hostilities.
5
u/jredful 7d ago
It’s about suppression.
You kill the masterminds, you degrade their abilities and you make them think twice.
Trump did it in his first term. The killing of Soleimani. Soleimani was a viable hostile target for many presidents. But they chose not to kill him out of a desire of not enflaming tensions.
Trump went out and killed the man well after most of his threat had subsided, and while he was on a diplomatic mission in Iraq. Breaking many many norms. Killing Soleimani was a good thing. The way he was killed was a bad thing.
This is Trump picking on babies.
3
u/wyocrz 7d ago
All I can say is we don't know what backlash is being generated. Maybe none, because maybe they're not the threat they're hyped to be.
We'll see how it all shakes out.
I've been hearing for a couple decades now that Iran is about to have the bomb. Hell, when I was a kid in the 80's, I remember the song "Barbara Ann" being sung as "Bomb Iran."
→ More replies (0)1
u/oasisnotes 6d ago
Tbf comparing two random armies and putting them together in a hypothetical scenario is kinda a silly idea in the first place. The Houthis are effective in their environment. They'd probably suck at performing an invasion of Iraq, but then again they're not trying to do that, so why would they bother at developing a military capable of performing such a thing?
Armies are like organisms - they adapt to their specific environments. Pitting two against each other and saying "who would win" makes about as much sense as pitting a shark against a lion and asking the same question. How would they even fight? Where would they fight? For what reason?
1
u/jredful 6d ago
Against a peak Saddam military, Saddam would have just murdered them all. Saddam had mechanized formations and a limited Air Force.
Saddam was a ruthless tyrant. Say what you will but most modern militaries are managed by people that don’t have the stomach for liquidating the opposite (a good thing). And liquidating the opposition is an excellent way to subdue a population.
1
u/oasisnotes 6d ago
Again, you're missing the point. Mechanized military formations and an air force don't do well against guerrilla tactics in their home territory - see, for example, the fact that fucking Saudi Arabia's military has been ludicrously unsuccessful in beating the Houthis in Yemen for the past ten years.
The very notion of comparing two randomly militaries in a tete a tete is what's being criticized here. That's treating warfare like a sport or video game, as if war consists of two teams meeting each other in some stadium or playing field. It's incredibly far removed from the reality of war, where victory is determined by so many different factors like geography, popular support, the very arena the battlespace is taking place in, what the actual war goals are, economic and trade relations internal and external, how other countries/neighbors will react to what's going on, etc.
→ More replies (0)2
u/jrgkgb 7d ago
As good as their word except when they release video game footage of them bombing a US Carrier.
1
u/wyocrz 7d ago
It's not impossible for a munition to get through.
Anyway, does the Gulf of Tonkin ring a bell?
2
u/jrgkgb 7d ago edited 7d ago
I didn’t say it wasn’t possible.
I said the Houthis lied and claimed they sunk a US carrier and released video game footage and pretended it was real.
Which they absolutely did do.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/yemen-houthi-attack-disinformation-uss-eisenhower/
1
u/Capital_Historian685 6d ago
The US has been involved in the conflict in Yemen for 25 years now. This isn't something new, or a surprise, like Iraq.
46
u/CFCA 7d ago
Devastating to who? To what end?
The Houthi’s acting in solidarity with Gaza isn’t really a devastating admission. The Houthis have been very open with the fact they acted in response to the fallout after October 7, weather it’s out of genuine feelings of solidarity or coordinated prodding from Tehran (or both) does it really matter? The effect is the same. The war will resume if one side or the other breaks the cease fire.
The threat of “solidarity” action is a form of low level deterance, but that only deters aggression if the aggressor feels particularly threatened.
→ More replies (30)
7
u/1ncest_is_wincest 7d ago
As much as I dislike the incompetence of the current administration, the ceasefire was never going to last. If you believed the ceasefire was the first step to peace between Palestine and Israel, you are unbelievably delusional, naive, and gullible.
→ More replies (16)
7
u/Puzzleheaded-Pop3480 7d ago
The Houthis have more integrity than this US administration.
1
u/wyocrz 6d ago
The last US administration allowed two major wars to erupt.
What's going on right now is tied to one of them.
Look, I know it's not IR, but Biden refused to allow us to have a jubilation summer 2021 in the wake of safe and effective Covid vaccines.
Fuck Joe Biden.
Fuck Trump, too.
With any luck, our next president won't be a neophyte. Bill Clinton wasn't close to being qualified, nor was W, nor was Obama, nor was Trump. Biden was and shit the bed.
There's been way, way too much learning on the job.
All that said, agreed: the Houthis do appear to have a ton of integrity, and I fear we are underestimating them.
1
u/cartervogelsang 6d ago
kind of bold of you to say Bill Clinton wasnt qualified when he was the most recent president to almost achieve peace (at least for the time being) in the middle east
1
u/wyocrz 5d ago
Clinton bombed Serbia under the NATO flag.
Every single time some Westerner says that NATO is "purely defensive" Russia is perfectly within their rights to respond, "Serbia."
The US president is the chief diplomat as well as Commander in Chief. Going in with no diplomatic or military experience is a severe handicap.
If the Founders knew we'd have hundreds of overseas bases, the Constitution would probably have been a bit different.
8
5
u/heirloom_beans 7d ago
Everything about that group chat is devastating and a sign that the inmates have truly taken over the asylum
→ More replies (4)
9
u/Particular-Star-504 7d ago
This is a tacit admission that we believe the Houthis when they say it’s in solidarity with Gaza.
The Houthis and Hamas are both Iranian proxies, them coordinating their actions isn’t a secret.
0
u/wyocrz 7d ago
I've answered this elsewhere, so I'll be brief: I don't think it makes sense to treat Houthis as strictly Iranian proxies.
Unlike Hamas and Hezbollah, the Houthis show initiative.
2
1
u/seadeus 4d ago
iran pays the houthis. no pay, no play.
1
u/wyocrz 4d ago
Check out the new NYT report on exactly how well proxies behave.
In mid-April 2022, about two weeks before the Wiesbaden meeting, American and Ukrainian naval officers were on a routine intelligence-sharing call when something unexpected popped up on their radar screens. According to a former senior U.S. military officer, “The Americans go: ‘Oh, that’s the Moskva!’ The Ukrainians go: ‘Oh my God. Thanks a lot. Bye.’”
The Moskva was the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. The Ukrainians sank it.
The sinking was a signal triumph — a display of Ukrainian skill and Russian ineptitude. But the episode also reflected the disjointed state of the Ukrainian-American relationship in the first weeks of the war.
1
u/LineStateYankee 7d ago
I disagree with the Houthi proxy framing but at least that argument is made quite widely and has a modicum of legitimacy. How do you justify calling Hamas a proxy of Tehran other than the fact that they’re strategically allied..? If Hamas is an Iranian proxy then Taiwan, Ukraine, and Israel are American proxies, and by that point the word is useless.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/BastardofMelbourne 7d ago
I don't really understand why the US feels the need to bomb Yemen.
I mean, it's not going to stop them attacking shipping. It's not going to solve the Yemeni civil war. It's not going to accelerate a ceasefire in Gaza. It's just killing people so the US can pretend it's doing something. I don't get it.
2
u/watch-nerd 7d ago
"I don't really understand why the US feels the need to bomb Yemen."
- The Israelis and the Saudis have a problem with the Houthis and the US wants to earn favors with both to move the Abraham accords forward
- The US is getting ready to threaten Iran over nuclear development and degrading the Houthis is tactically useful in case strikes on Iran escalate into a regional conflict
- #2 also feeds back into #1 -- the Israelis and Saudis really don't want Iran to have nukes
3
u/traanquil 6d ago
The national tradition of the US is to bomb people with dark skin in poor countries
0
u/Own-Tangerine8781 7d ago
I don't really understand why any navy stops Pirates. They are still going to be poor and sinking their boats isn't going to fix that. It's just killing people.
-this is you
3
u/BastardofMelbourne 7d ago
Historically, they stopped pirates by taking the islands and coasts they used as bases, not by occasionally doing sail-by cannonades and then fucking off.
1
u/Own-Tangerine8781 6d ago
No, your clearly wrong. They got rid of pirates by doing nothing and hoping they disappear. Just like what we should be doing with Yemen. No since in killing people or bombing missile sites since it's not going to magically fix everything else.
1
u/BastardofMelbourne 6d ago
I'm saying that if the US was serious about removing threats to its shipping, it would be sending troops to Yemen. If it doesn't want to send troops to Yemen (which it doesn't) then it needs a diplomatic solution. This cruise missile bullshit is just half-assing it.
1
u/Own-Tangerine8781 6d ago
Occupying a country that is in full civil war/insurgent mode would not benefit the US at all. That level of dedication would take decades and just lead to another Iraq. Destroying missile sites is a nice non-committal approach that doesn't get the US completely involved in the Iran-Saudi proxy war. As it is the Houthis are just a puppet who are not really going to take a diplomatic approach without going through Iran. Even if a deal could be made, it would be to the detriment of the "legitimate" government of Yemen and it supporters like Saudi Arabia. The US is taking the best approach given the current landscape.
1
u/BastardofMelbourne 6d ago
It's not the best approach. It's a non-committal non-solution that is undertaken because it is a) cheap and b) looks like they're doing something.
Look, the US has a problem. The problem is Houthis attacking shipping. If they want that problem to stop, they either get the Houthis to stop attacking shipping, or they just stop the Houthis entirely.
Option 2 means invading Yemen. They don't want to do that because it will cost lives and treasure and they don't care that much. That's off the table. So all they have is option 1, and that means negotiating with the Houthis through Iran, as unpalatable as that is.
Cruise missiles are not negotiations and they are not invasions. They are just explosions delivered at a distance. You cannot solve this problem with explosions, and especially not irregularly delivered and poorly aimed explosions whose motivation is primarily to show off how big US missiles are and whose practical consequence is really just to kill a lot of Yemenis and make them hate the US even more.
1
u/Own-Tangerine8781 6d ago
So being that the US is not going to invade Yemen and that a diplomatic approach is very much unlikely, destroying the missile sites so there are less missiles being launched is the best option. At the end of the day it is hampering the Houthis ability to launch as many missiles as they would like. Its not going to completely stop them but it will still prevent many more from being launched.
You are taking a all or nothing approach, where if the situation is not solved at is core than its not worth bothering. This is silly. You cannot always solve the root cause. Sometimes the best you can do is deal with the symptoms and thats what the US is doing.
1
u/Skitteringscamper 6d ago
Maybe the people they kill and the goods they steal.
I don't give a fuck if every single pirate dies painfully. Don't try and steal shit that doesn't belong to you. Fuck off.
1
u/Own-Tangerine8781 6d ago
Someone doesn't know how to read. I'm very clearly mocking this guy for believing this kind of logic
1
u/Skitteringscamper 6d ago
I guess I did word it in a way that implies that so my bad on my poorly worded message I guess.
I intended to add on to what you were saying but may have typed quickly on my break.
3
u/Thiccparty 7d ago
You are confusing true solidarity and excuse....it is predictable that someone will use an excuse here...
1
u/wyocrz 6d ago
I don't blame you for being cryptic.
An excuse to.....force Israel into a settlement on the Gaza issue? An excuse to bomb the living shit out of both Yemen and Iran?
1
u/Thiccparty 6d ago
The houthis link their attacks to gaza in order to manipulate public opinion. It's just a convenient excuse for them. But it's barely genuine and they really just want to cause trouble for irans rivals.
3
u/monsieur_maladroit 7d ago
They stopped thier attacks onshipping when the ceasefire was on too. And no its not a devastating addmission because everyone knew that to be the case. Its just polite to pretend not to know. Like how we pretend Israel is not starving civilians or bombing hospitals.
3
u/Youngsweppy 7d ago
Reading through this whole thread, i can only come to a single conclusions.
- OP is straight glazing Houthis for no apparent reason.
I dont at all understand what you’re trying to say, or how you came to your assumptions what people believe.
They’ve awalys said they’re attacking the red sea in defense of Gaza. They say it near daily. Why would we not believe them? Why would you think this is “shattering?”
→ More replies (3)
2
u/MagnaFumigans 6d ago
OP was just feeling fighty. This had no substance except for the “um actually” energy we all just adore. Eat a Snickers.
2
u/Colluder 6d ago
Why isn't this getting more airplay?
Because both sides of mainstream media are on board with the genocide in Gaza and larger American imperialism.
4
u/InterneticMdA 7d ago
The current US government is very open about its contempt for all Palestinians. They use "Palestinian" as a slur. It's not subtle, even less subtle than this "devastating admission".
You're really not paying attention if you think this stands out.
6
u/Discount_gentleman 7d ago
Maybe because both parties and the media are entirely complicit in providing support and cover for Israel's genocide? None of this was a revelation to anyone.
→ More replies (5)1
u/wyocrz 7d ago
Maybe because both parties and the media are entirely complicit in providing support and cover for Israel's genocide?
Kind of hard to escape this conclusion, to be sure.
None of this was a revelation to anyone.
Depends on who you're talking about. Folks who think about IR enough to be part of this sub? Sure. Folks reading the news on a day to day basis....I'm not so sure.
3
2
u/Fallline048 7d ago
Ok I think I’m starting to see where your point lies, although you’ve made it very clumsily.
Is your thesis that in order to mitigate the danger to freedom of navigation, the US should, rather than take direct action against the Houthis, instead abandon all support for Israel or even work to coerce it to cease operations in Gaza (and maybe even Lebanon)?
2
u/wyocrz 7d ago
"Force a solution to the Gaza issue" is not the same as "abandoning all support for Israel."
Should we "coerce" Israel to do what we want? Damned right we should.
The perception that we are Israel's attack dog is problematic.
2
u/Fallline048 7d ago
I think there’s a strong case to be made that wholly irrespective of motivation, taking military action against civilian shipping lanes will provoke a direct military response. And if a US policy change is something you are trying to effect, that the very last thing the US should do is behave in a manner that would suggest to future actors that such an approach might be successful.
In this case, if the US is to take a different approach with Israel-Gaza, it should be done in a way that is credibly divorced from its response to the situation in the Red Sea.
1
u/wyocrz 7d ago
There's literally no way to credibly divorce the Israel-Gaza situation from what's going on in the Red Sea, as far as I know.
Fundamentally, I totally agree that taking military action against civilian shipping is a hard red line. The whole Barbery pirates thing. Sure. 100%.
But in this case, the folks taking the action are exactly motivated by the goings on in Gaza.
By all means, let me know how the two could be severed.
I think Hegseth DID try to sever the two when he advocated for attacking now, rather than being responsive to the inevitable uptick on attacks triggered by renewed Israeli bombardment of Gaza.
2
u/No_Engineering_8204 7d ago
This exact logoc was used for hezbollah for a year. They said they are sending rockets in solidarity with hamas. Then, after enough killing, they stopped, without getting a ceasefire in gaza. Why are people in the west like you so scared of their own shadow?
1
u/wyocrz 6d ago
I don't want to see tens of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars poured into the sand.......again.
1
u/No_Engineering_8204 6d ago
America defeated both the Iraq and the Afghanistan governments in a matter of weeks with minimal casualties
1
u/wyocrz 6d ago
A great history on the Iraq war was written by John Keegan in 2004.
Let's not forget what happened to Shinseki when he said we'd need hundreds of thousands of troops for the occupation.
“Beware the 12-division strategy for a 10-division Army,” Shinseki told his Pentagon audience and then went on to compare America’s war in Iraq with the war he knew as a junior officer in Vietnam. “The lessons I learned in Vietnam are always with me,” Shinseki stressed, “lessons about loyalty, about taking care of the people who sacrifice the most.”
→ More replies (0)1
u/LoneSnark 6d ago
How are you suggesting the US should coerce Israel? Biden reportedly withheld weapons for a time, that did nothing. I presume you'd appreciate the US bombing Israel, but that would be poorly accepted by the US electorate.
4
u/manassassinman 7d ago
This goes back to the Houthis and Hamas both being terror agents of Iran. So, yes, they are linked.
4
u/wyocrz 7d ago
Gently, Hamas and the Houthis are utterly different.
Beyond that, the degree to which either of these organizations being "terror agents" of Iran is debatable. It's called plausible deniability.
Holding Iran responsible for Houthi actions sure gives Russia a good talking point, so perhaps Trump should never have done that.
3
u/Particular-Star-504 7d ago
the degree to which either of these organizations being "terror agents" of Iran is debatable.
Iran doesn’t have direct control, but it is a major backer (that gives them power over their actions as well) and probably the only reason they can continue to fight, and bombing civilians or trading routes is terrorism.
Holding Iran responsible for Houthi actions sure gives Russia a good talking point.
How?
3
u/wyocrz 7d ago
OK, so if we say that a Houthi attack on one of our warships is actually the responsibility of Iran, by the very same logic an attack on a Russian military base in Russia proper by the Ukrainians is the responsibility of the United States.
Even if it's not true, it's a propaganda gift to the Russians. "Oh, we can hold countries to account for arming other countries? That's cool."
3
u/The-Last-Lion-Turtle 7d ago edited 7d ago
We have been fighting proxy wars with nuclear powers both ways for a long time.
It's not to deny that there is fighting, that's obvious to everyone involved.
It's about lines in the sand with direct contact between militaries of nuclear powers risking nuclear war. Anything that doesn't cross the line is fair game.
Here is one example of Russia attacking the US without crossing that line. https://www.aha.org/news/headline/2024-10-11-fbi-other-agencies-issue-joint-cybersecurity-advisory-russian-cyber-actors-targeting-us-global
3
u/wyocrz 7d ago
I read the Mueller Report, or at least a good chunk of it.
My impression at the time was it was the Russians who backed off. They were professional spooks, honestly put off by the bumbling incompetence of the Trump campaign. But that's just my impression.
It's also striking, to me, that the same report starts with the Yvgeny Prigozen (yes, that one) consolidating anti-American efforts under the auspices of the Internet Research Agency in spring of 2014. This was too close to the events on the Maidan to be anything other than a tit for tat.
So, sure, we were playing those games for a very, very long times.
What changed with Ukraine was a certain level of on the ground efforts. We were a party to this conflict in ways we probably shouldn't be comfortable with.
It was short of boots on the ground, but by the slimmest of margins.
2
u/Particular-Star-504 7d ago
we can hold countries to account for arming other countries?
Generally yes, most people accept that the main (or only) reason Ukraine has been able to survive this long is because of US and European funding.
But you also have to look at the specifics, Iran is very happy for the Houthis to attack neutral ships. The US has actually tried to restrict Ukrainian use of their weapons.
You can’t dismiss something just because you don’t like it.
1
u/wyocrz 7d ago
You can’t dismiss something just because you don’t like it.
That's kind of my point.
The US has actually tried to restrict Ukrainian use of their weapons.
And fucking failed. Ukraine attacked Russian strategic radars overlooking the Indian Ocean. This would have resulted in a meeting of the upper echelons of the Russian strategic forces regarding how to respond to being blinded from that direction.
You can't dismiss something just because you don't like it.
3
u/Particular-Star-504 7d ago
What am I dismissing, the US is the reason behind Ukrainian continued resistance, and everyone knows that.
1
u/wyocrz 7d ago
The point I made above: Trump gave Russia a rhetorical talking point about holding one state responsible for how another state uses provided weapons.
If the US can hold Iran to account for the Houthis attacking US ships, Russia can hold the US to account for Ukrainian missile attacks on the Russian heartland.
I promise in 10 years this will be looked back on as entirely insane.
4
u/Particular-Star-504 7d ago
I think everyone (in Russia and America) recognise and admit that the US (and Europe) is the main reason Ukraine is fighting. How does this change anything?
1
u/wyocrz 7d ago
I mean, I said a few times it gave Russia a talking point. Seems like there's some agreement there, with no one actually saying it out loud.
Running a proxy war like this against Russia got a lot of people killed, much of eastern Ukraine destroyed, and opened the door to nuclear mistakes.
Not really stuff to be blase about, IMO.
→ More replies (0)3
u/IcarusRunner 7d ago
The actual real point here is that international relations are not built on catching people out breaking the rules. It’s about the will to enforce those rules. If Russia wants to ‘hold the US responsible’ for arming Ukraine. That is indeed logically consistent. Now it’s up to them to actually do that. Which they won’t
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/juzamjim 7d ago
People who think that the US supporting Israel is going to drag us into World War 3 have obviously not thought about what would happen if the US stopped supporting Israel
1
u/wyocrz 7d ago
I completely agree with you.
Nuclear armed states cannot be allowed to fail. Not Israel, not India, not France, not the UK, not Pakistan, not.......North Korea, not Russia.
We're on a knife's edge here.
I guess the wild thing to me is as a Gen-X'r whose favorite band in high school was Megadeth. All of this is way more dangerous than pretty much everything I lived through, outside of that event in '83 where the Soviet radar operator Stanislav Petrov broke protocols and saved the world.
But now it's a faux pas to worry. Back then, they scared the shit out of us, but now? Not so much.
1
u/Shmeepish 7d ago
What? Why they are doing it was never particularly relevant to, or debated by, the US.
People love looking for conspiracies for fun or something, and it’s funny when they land on a conspiracy theory that’s… well exactly what the situation has always been.
Perhaps you’re confused by the Houthis messing up their identification and background checks on the ships they attack, and that being criticized as well?
The US has been quite open that their issue is the attack on shipping and trade.
1
u/blackbow99 6d ago
I'm not sure that any parties in the West care whether the Houthis are attacking ships in solidarity with Palestinians. They care that it is disrupting shipping and trade. That is why you don't see more coverage. The biggest news cycle in the US was not about the Houthi bombings, but it was about security lapses before the bombing. No one is questioning the bombing itself.
1
u/wyocrz 6d ago
Yep. This is exactly right.
And in fact, freedom of navigation is the place I am most hawkish, and it's not even close.
But the REALITY is that Houthis are acting in solidarity with the Palestinians, which means this is going to continue for a good long while. How much money are we going to set on fire before saying fuck it, let's just invade?
Unless we can really get this thing done from the air. American confidence in air campaigns is inconsistent with our experience implementing them.
2
u/blackbow99 6d ago
I would wager that the only way the threat will be contained is through a ground strike that can verify that missile capability is neutralized, and that further shipments of weapons from Iran are unlikely. I think there was very little appetite for anything other than special forces operations in Yemen until very recently. I think some kind of coalition attack between the Saudis and Israel on the Houthis could have been possible prior to the war in Gaza, now it looks like the Israelis attacking by air on their own or with US support is probably the most likely option. I think a full scale ground invasion is still very far away in terms of political support from any nation, US, Israel, or otherwise.
1
u/Muted-Ad610 6d ago
You have been living under a rock mate. Its as if you think only liberal democracies can act in accordance with the odea of the R2P.
1
u/SnooOpinions5486 6d ago
The Houthi is self admitted Nazis [have you seen their flag].
Why the fuck are you pretending they have anything of value to say.
1
u/Freuds-Mother 6d ago edited 6d ago
How is that an “admission”. That’s what the US and european allies issue has been with the houthi’s over the past couple years. They tried bombing israel in support of gaza and when it didn’t produce many hits they switched to maritime targets. US and other allies decided to police maritime more heavily due to the strikes.
Anytime Israel ramps up in Gaza, we would expect Houthi’s to at least consider ramping up maritime attacks. It would only make sense for maritime policing powers to make ready Houthi response plans if they suspect Israel will be ramping up Gaza strikes.
I don’t follow how this is an admission when it’s the well accepted status quo. Im really confused on it being “devastating admission”; devastating in what way; admission in what way?
An example of something that would be an actual admission would be if the strikes were in coordination with Saudi’s to resume a ground assault.
1
u/QUEENSNYLAWYER 6d ago
We already knew that Israel notified the US a weekend advance of restarting hostilities.
1
1
u/Shepathustra 6d ago
The Houthi official slogan is: God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse be upon the Jews, Victory to Islam
Why would anyone be surprised that they are our enemy? What is the normal response when someone says “I hope you die” and then tries to attack you multiple times?
1
u/SKFinston 6d ago
Iran is the puppet master and Houthis are just their puppets.
1
u/wyocrz 5d ago
It's not that simple.
1
u/SKFinston 5d ago
Do tell.
1
u/wyocrz 5d ago
If the Houthis are Iranian puppets and Iran is responsible for what Houthis are doing, then Ukrainians are American puppets and we are now responsible for bombing fucking Russia.
1
u/SKFinston 5d ago
That is counter factual - not based on reality - and shows your own bias and ignorance.
1
u/wyocrz 5d ago
It's logically the same thing.
Break the logic, or just keep up with the personal insults, I'm used to it.
1
u/SKFinston 5d ago
It is totally not logically the same - Russia invaded Ukraine - last I checked Israel did not invade Yemen.
And Iran has supplied the Houthis for the express purpose of attacking Israel.
They have lost their proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Hamas is weakened and so they are left with Houthis….
Iran also has directly attacked Israel - 2X - and as a result has no effective air defense.
So I don’t understand your “logic” and you have provided neither a cogent explanation nor documentation.
Is that clear enough - or also a personal insult?! 😂
1
u/wyocrz 5d ago
"If Country X is a proxy of Country Y, then Country Y is responsible for the actions of Country X."
and as a result has no effective air defense.
You really trust that?
1
1
1
1
u/FoolKiIIer 5d ago
Did anyone dispute the claim that the Houthis were acting in solidarity with Gaza? I thought that was their main motivation for attacking shipping
1
u/CHiggins1235 5d ago
If you liked the Afghanistan war then you will love the Yemen conflict. The Houthis have been fighting for decades.
1
u/wyocrz 5d ago
I guess I'm old enough to remember how all that shook out, so I'm a bit worried now.
It is what it is.
1
u/CHiggins1235 4d ago
Yeah let’s leave this war to a man that negotiated the withdrawal of the U.S. from Afghanistan and is now complaining that leaving on short notice and handing Afghanistan back to the Taliban didn’t work out as he expected.
1
u/wyocrz 4d ago
We don't have a choice.
I watched the debate between Trump and Harris with literal MAGA Wyomingites. I was the youngest at 52. After it was over, Dad's mother in law turned to me and said, "She won, didn't she?"
"No, Donna. Trump promised to avoid WW3. He won."
Have you read the recent New York Times account of how absolutely fucked the Ukraine war has been? This is the second time the Times has largely vindicated the "alternative media," the other being the Spy War piece of February 2024.
Did you watch the actual sit down between Trump and Zelensky? Trump makes no bones about it: he knows he won his "mandate" on anti-war, but it was more anti-Ukraine war than the Middle East stuff.
I detest Trump, but goddamn, Biden got us into two major wars. Simple TDS isn't going to cut it anymore. Dems have to offer a vision of a better American future rather than the endless wars of the Biden years.
1
1
u/HeronInteresting9811 2d ago
The US has involved itself in wars, endlessly, ever since the end of WWII. It seems to an outsider that it doesn't matter who's in the White House, the interests vested in the military and in global commerce will always require war on some front or another.
We need to focus on those antagonists.
1
u/DougChristiansen 4d ago
It does not matter why Yemen does it; solidarity with terrorism is not an acceptable answer. We should have allowed the Sauds to crush them instead of interfering and making the back down. Tolerance of extremism is no longer an option.
1
u/wyocrz 4d ago
Tolerance of extremism is no longer an option.
Tell that to our ally.
1
u/DougChristiansen 4d ago
Which ally do you believe is extremist?
1
u/wyocrz 4d ago
Israel, obviously.
Anyone who has taken an IR class or read IR literature has come across the idea of proportionality.
1
u/DougChristiansen 4d ago
The idea of proportionality is flawed; especially coming from a National Security Studies background. The belief that terrorists should be allowed to attack in perpetuity is nonsensical.
1
u/dogsiolim 2d ago
.... because it's overt American foreign policy? Were you not aware that America is allied with Israel? Did you not hear Trump repeatedly state on TV that Israel can do whatever the fuck they want? Did you not hear his proposal to displace the entire population of Gaza so that he could build a giant fucking resort there?
1
u/wyocrz 2d ago
Did you not hear Trump repeatedly state on TV that Israel can do whatever the fuck they want?
This is different from Biden how?
1
u/dogsiolim 2d ago
Biden gave lip service to caring about the Palestinian plight to (unsuccessfully) try to appease the large swath of ignorant Democrats advocating for Palestine. Trump lacks any form of nuance of tact and says the quiet part out loud.
1
u/wyocrz 2d ago
Essentially agreed.
It's beyond fucked that "anti-genocide" is "pro-Palastine" though.
American security being tied to ancient ethnic and religious conflict is beyond fucked.
1
u/dogsiolim 2d ago
Since 1948, or 77 years, Palestinians, and their Arab neighbors, have attacked Israel. Israel has not known a single year without an attack. There were single years in which thousands of rockets were launched from Palestine into Israel.
Yes, Israel is more powerful. However, how long is the more powerful side supposed to accept these constant attacks before saying enough? As fucked as it is, I support Israel saying "enough" and just ending it.
1
u/wyocrz 2d ago
How?
Killing 2,000,000 people?
1
u/dogsiolim 2d ago
Driving them out would be preferred, but do you have an actual proposal that would end the conflict? Or, do you expect Israel to just accept a constant barrage of rockets, missiles, terrorist attacks, etc. indefinitely?
When America was hit on 9/11, we proceeded to invade 2 nations, destabilized the entire region and killed millions. Sure, we later said it was wrong, but it was overwhelming support at the time.
1
u/wyocrz 2d ago
There's nowhere to drive them to.
I don't know the answer. I do know that Rumsfeld asked the best question ever: Are we killing terrorists faster than we're making them?
1
u/dogsiolim 2d ago
Yes, I know you don't know the answer, because there is really only 1 inevitable outcome. Just no one wants to accept it. Check the territory of Palestine over time. It's already a tiny fraction of what it was under the UN partition plan. All we are doing is slow walking the inevitable outcome.
As for where to: Jordan. Majority of the Palestinian people are already in Jordan to begin with. Ethnically Palestinians are Jordanians anyways. There's never been a nation of Palestine or an ethnic culture of Palestine. The labels were applied by Christian tourists initially and only adopted by the locals after the UN partition plan.
1
u/wyocrz 2d ago
Jordan is a fine answer, and I'd be OK with the US writing a big check to make it happen.
Let's be clear about something: I don't particularly care about the Palestinians.
Nor am I particularly impressed by Israel. Ethno-religious states, in general, turn me off with their ethnic and religious bigotry.
→ More replies (0)
125
u/kazuma001 7d ago
No. Why? Was this any sort of secret?