Trump Massacres Yemenis so Israel can Massacre Palestinians
On April 17, US airstrikes on Yemen killed 74 people and injured 171 in a dangerous escalation of US President Donald Trump’s war against the poorest country in the Middle East. A resident of the area around Yemen’s Ras Issa fuel port told Chinese media that “among the victims were employees, truck drivers, contracted workers, and civilian trainees of the port,” and “rescue teams recovering bodies and extinguishing fires were also targeted in [US] subsequent strikes.”
Trump’s attack targeted Ras Issa a vital lifeline connecting the isolated, bombarded country to outside supply shipments. For its part, the US administration claimed that the bombing intended to prevent Iranian fuel from reaching “the Iran-backed Houthi terrorists” in order to “deprive them of illegal revenue that has funded Houthi efforts to terrorize the entire region for over 10 years.”
While it is US policy to delegitimize Ansar Allah (also known as “the Houthis”) as “Iran-backed terrorists,” in fact, 80 percent of Yemenis live under the Sanaa-based Supreme Political Council led by Ansar Allah, making them Yemen’s de facto government. They have a huge degree of public support, as evidenced by the regular protests of tens of even hundreds of thousands of Yemenis opposing US aggression and supporting Ansar Allah’s armed support for Palestinian liberation.
Ansar Allah survived eight years of Saudi-led attacks on Yemen, a war of aggression (backed militarily and diplomatically by governments of the US, Canada, and Europe) that levelled civilian infrastructure and killed almost 400,000 Yemenis. Trump’s bombings will not destroy the vilified “Houthi rebels,” but that is not their goal. What Washington wants is to force Yemen to withdraw its armed support for Palestinians resisting Israel’s genocide.
After Israel launched its onslaught against Gaza in October 2023, Yemen imposed a blockade on Red Sea shipping to Israel. As Israel’s assault on Palestinians in Gaza reached genocidal proportions, Yemen launched drone and missile attacks against Israeli targets. From the beginning, Ansar Allah was very forthright: they stated that the attacks on Red Sea ships and Israeli targets would stop once Israel ceased its genocidal assault on Gaza. During the Gaza ceasefire of January 19 to March 18, 2025, Ansar Allah did cease its military actions in the Red Sea (even as Israel violated the ceasefire 962 times), clearly demonstrating the connection between Israel’s genocide and Yemeni military activity.
US efforts to paint the Yemenis as puppets of Iran, mindless terrorists, and maritime pirates are part of a concerted effort by Washington to obfuscate the just, defensive, and humanitarian motivations behind Ansar Allah’s actions. The recent phase of US attacks on Yemen began in January 2024 under former president Joe Biden, and these bombings received logistical support from, among other countries, Canada and the United Kingdom. After coming to office, Trump intensified the US war on Yemen. Since March, his attacks have killed more than 50 Yemenis, not counting the recent bombardment of civilians at the Ras Issa port. Reportedly, his administration is mulling a ground invasion of Yemen.
One must always keep in mind why America is upping its attacks on the Yemeni people. It is because Yemen is trying to prevent Israel, an outpost of US power in the Middle East, from carrying out a genocide. That’s it. International and humanitarian law mean nothing to Washington. US efforts to paint Ansar Allah as illegitimate, criminal, or aggressors are transparent attempts to rhetorically discredit a regional resistance movement in order to make the massacre of Yemenis palatable to Western audiences.
In the US empire’s eyes, the reason Yemenis need to be massacred is obvious: they are opponents of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Trump is massacring Yemenis so that Israel can continue massacring Palestinians. It really is that simple.
Trump’s Unconstitutional, Presidential War Against Yemen
For Americans who still think that Donald Trump is an advocate of realism and restraint in foreign policy, the events in Yemen should come as a rude awakening. Unfortunately, the most prominent indicator enabled the president’s political opponents to evade their own share of the blame for the tragic events in that country. Revelations that members of Trump’s national security team had conducted a discussion of highly classified information about war plans in Yemen over an insecure system exploded in the news media last month. One official, apparently National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, had even inadvertently invited Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of the Atlantic, to join the chat. The resulting “Signalgate” scandal dominated the news cycle for the next two weeks.
The dominant focus of most news stories about the episode was both revealing and depressing. Critics vehemently denounced the Trump team for an egregious inability to keep the Yemen war plans secret. Few journalists or members of Congress condemned the participants in the chat for planning an unconstitutional war. There was no hint that President Trump planned to seek a formal declaration of war as required by the Constitution. Instead, the principal officials intend to continue the illegal practice of waging presidential wars that has become the norm since the end of World War II.
Indeed, a new phase of the conflict with Yemen was already well underway. Vice President J. D. Vance boasted to the other participants in the chat that U.S. forces had located a “terrorist leader” (i.e. a high-level military official of Yemen’s Houthi rebel government) and would be taking him out. Indeed, the U.S. launched an air and missile attack on the apartment complex where the official was visiting his girlfriend. The collateral damage included the collapse of the building along with extensive casualties. Notably, very few administration critics bothered to criticize the Trump foreign policy team for such conduct.
Matters have grown worse since that episode. On April 17, U.S. forces conducted an even larger assault on a civilian port in Yemen. This time, more than 80 people, mostly civilians, perished. And once again, there was silence from critics who have denounced the Trump administration for everything from the ill-treatment of immigrants, to harassment of law firms linked to the Democratic Party, to the White House’s efforts to downsize the federal bureaucracy.
Bipartisanship about waging brutal, unconstitutional wars, though, apparently remains thoroughly intact. Given the long history of pro-war views on Yemen in both parties, one should not be especially surprised that there would be no meaningful dissent regarding Washington’s current belligerence toward that country. When Saudi Arabia first intervened in Yemen’s simmering civil war in 2015, Barack Obama’s administration gave full backing to its ally and the coalition that Riyadh led. Washington supplied weapons to the Saudi-led forces, shared military intelligence with those forces, and helped to refuel coalition warplanes. Most of that support continued through both Trump’s first term and Biden’s presidency.
The U.S. meddling helped produce one of the worst tragedies in the perennially troubled Middle East. In the years that followed during the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations, the people of Yemen suffered from famine, a cholera epidemic, and the chronic infliction of military casualties. Even when the fighting subsided from time to time, the respites were relatively brief. Before Trump took office for his second term in 2021, the Biden administration had launched a new wave of attacks on Houthi targets because the Yemini regime condemned Israel for its war crimes in Gaza and harassed Western shipping passing through the Red Sea.
The Trump administration’s decision to reignite full-scale warfare in Yemen is horrifying and immoral. To do so without a declaration of war is also unconstitutional. For administration critics to condemn officials for insufficient skill in concealing such illegal and immoral conduct but not to denounce the conduct itself is disgraceful.
Dr. Ted Galen Carpenter is a contributing editor to 19FortyFive and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute and the Libertarian Institute. He also served in various senior policy positions during a 37-year career at the Cato Institute. Dr. Carpenter is the author of 13 books and more than 1,300 articles on defense, foreign policy and c.ivil liberties issues. His latest book is Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy (2022)
Op-Ed: Iran’s Withdrawal Doesn’t Signal Abandonment of Houthis
Earlier this month, observers pointed out the lack of activity by Iran’s Nedaja along the Red Sea. The presence of two U.S. Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) across Bab al-Mandab is cited as possible reason behind Iran breaking its naval “continuous presence in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden area since 2008.” This unique absence also highlights the redeployment of Iranian spy vessels such as the Zagros, Behshad, Saviz and Behzad, which “have played an important role in the collection of intelligence and its dissemination to Iran’s Houthi allies.”
This unique coincidence may have contributed to recent reports claiming Iran has abandoned Houthis. Recent events however show an East Africa footprint provides the Iran-Houthi alliance capabilities to retain threats along the Red Sea.
In recent months, the build-up of Iranian assets across territory held by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) has come under scrutiny, particularly since SAF took control of Khartoum in March. While Nedaja vessels may have withdrawn from the Red Sea, Iranian vessels continue to call at Port Sudan from Bandar Abbas. Just as Iran has provided assistance to Yemen’s Houthis, Tehran has helped SAF build a series of tunnel bases and deployed modern air defense and radar systems.
Iran has yet to provide such systems to Houthis, perhaps as consequence of the vulnerability to U.S. strikes authorized under Operation Prosperity Guardian, and now Operation Rough Rider. Whereas in Sudan, there is no authority to interfere in the ongoing armed conflict, which would risk a wider war among regional powers and China.
Houthis have also followed in Iran’s footsteps and established themselves along Sudan’s Red Sea coast. Multiple priorities pushed Houthi expansion into East African territories like Sudan and Somalia. Houthi presence has established outposts that allowed mobility for their operatives and future leap-frog bases as an umbrella for a “network of resistance.” Shared interests with Iran advanced the Houthi footprint across East Africa with help from well-established smuggling networks during the Saleh (d.2017) era, offering services to all parties.
Iran’s own interests in East Africa absolutely center in countering growing influence of Gulf rivals like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Sudan’s shores grant both allies direct access to Yanbu, a major port for gas and oil export that allow Saudi Arabia to bypass the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab en route to Suez Canal. Houthi drone capabilities, both aerial and sea-based, now have alternative launch points from Sudan capable of protecting their rear in event of a foreign invasion by sea and retain capability to threaten international naval presence across Bab al-Mandab.
The US administration launched Operation Rough Rider specifically citing Houthi threats to maritime navigation along the Red Sea. Although Houthis have not targeted vessels since December 6, 2024, the month-long U.S. air campaign has reportedly degraded Houthi capability to launch drone or missile strikes against civilian ships across the Bab al-Mandab area.
The Houthi-Iran alliance however can undoubtedly pose a similar threat from across Sudan’s Red Sea coast, targeting any naval forces providing support to ground troops moving toward Hodeida seaport. U.S. awareness of the threat from Sudan’s shore may also explain the use of Diego Garcia base for B2 bombers and position of U.S. naval forces farther north from Port Sudan and around Gulf of Aden.
Fernando Carvajal served on the UN Security Council Panel of Experts on Yemen from April 2017 to March 2019 as a regional and armed groups expert. He holds an MA in National Security Studies and has over 20 years of experience conducting fieldwork in Yemen and the Gulf.
The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.
No comments:
Post a Comment