AP
Missile and bomb strikes by American warplanes against Houthi rebel military targets in Yemen have become a regular occurrence, underscoring President Trump’s commitment to a «peace through strength» strategy
On March 23, as reported by The Times of India, at least 13 civilians were killed and nine were injured in a raid on Sana, the capital of Yemen. Meanwhile, another 11 people, including four children and one woman, were killed and 14 were wounded in the northern province of Saada.
A new series of airstrikes followed on March 27. At the same time, the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier departed from the shores of the Korean Peninsula for the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. It was sent to support the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman, which is being used as the main command center in the campaign against the Houthis.
The escalation in military preparations comes as Tehran-backed proxy fighters — who, despite sinking relatively few ships in the surrounding waters — have increased the risks to cargo traffic on the busiest trade route between Asia and Europe, passing through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal.
What primarily provoked Trump and his associates was the Houthis’ targeted attacks on ships belonging not only to Israel, but also to the so-called «Anglo-Saxon» former empires that in previous centuries built their prosperity on maritime trade and control of sea lanes.
Particularly revealing is the discussion among top Trump officials that was leaked to the public and happened to fall into the hands of Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. It is hard to find a more striking example of what Pushkin called in Boris Godunov the «secret mode of thinking». Here is an excerpt from the exchange two hours before the bombing began in Yemen:
Vice President J.D. Vance: «I think we’re making a mistake… only 3% of U.S. trade goes through the Suez Canal. But 40% of European trade goes through it». Then, addressing Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, he writes: «If you think we should do it, let’s do it. I just don’t like bailing out Europe again».
Hegseth replies: «Mr. Vice President, I fully share your loathing of European freeloading».
Next, an unidentified participant in the discussion writes in the chat: «If Europe doesn’t pay, then what? If the U.S. successfully restores freedom of navigation at great expense, it must receive some additional economic benefit in return». Hegseth replies: «Agreed».
Two key words in the correspondence characterize the basic U.S. approach to allies across the ocean — «European freeloaders» — and concern about extracting «additional economic benefits».
The correspondence concluded with J.D. Vance writing: «I will pray for victory», and two others adding a prayer emoji. The unanimity among Trump’s inner circle is telling. It is reminiscent of the incantations of like-minded individuals who, even in the absence of their chief shaman, call for rain. In this case, it is a rain of fire to be poured down on the heads of their enemies.
Nevertheless, the US administration’s undeclared war against the Houthis must be seen in a broader context. One of the first documents signed by Donald Trump was the Presidential National Security Memorandum (NSPM-2). This document states: «It is in the (United States) national interest to exert maximum pressure on the Iranian regime to end its nuclear threat, dismantle its ballistic missile program, and cease its support for terrorist organizations».
Trump, notes the publication Responsible Statecraft, «left open the question of military strikes on Iran’s nuclear and military facilities if non-military efforts fail to rein in Tehran».
Recently, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz warned Tehran that there would be «consequences» if it did not curb its «nuclear weapons program». He added that “Iran is in the worst national security situation it has been in since 1979” and therefore must comply with U.S. demands «in a way that the whole world can see».
The White House’s usual way of talking to the outside world, no matter who lives there — essentially, «let me scare them» — will inevitably be met with disapproval and rejection in Tehran.
It should be remembered that Iran is considered a «threshold nuclear state», possessing core technologies, including centrifuges for uranium enrichment, and delivery systems — missiles, including hypersonic ones. If it refuses to convert its peaceful nuclear program into a military one, Iran — labeled a «pariah» by the U.S. and an existential threat by Israel — would become easy prey. And then war would be inevitable.
What are Trump’s chances that Tehran, for whom the symbolic show of force against the Houthis is intended, will be intimidated? As experts from the Atlantic Council — considered «undesirable» in Russia — note, «Given the Houthis’ ties not only to Iran but also to China and Russia, the United States will need a much more systematic effort than one-off bombings».
The magazine offers a compelling argument: from March 2015 to March 2022, Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners conducted between 25,054 and 75,135 airstrikes (estimates vary) against Houthi positions. Nevertheless, the Houthis have not lost their ability to attack Saudi Arabia’s energy, aviation, and other civilian infrastructure. As the experts summarize, «it turned out to be cheaper to call a truce».
To defeat the Houthis, the White House and the Pentagon would need something that has often deterred them: boots on the ground. Are Washington’s political leaders and the Pentagon prepared to escalate military operations?
For Moscow, the miscalculation of Trump’s team is advantageous. With its ill-conceived, short-sighted message, the new US administration is confirming Iran’s worst fears. Trump and his entourage are firmly tied to Israel, so there is no point in hoping for a reset in bilateral relations. The strategy of the higher echelons of power in Tehran — to make the former minister of health, cardiologist Masoud Pezeshkian, president, to present him as a pro-Western politician and to try to flirt with the U.S. — has failed.
A telling coincidence: on March 27, when the Americans once again bombed the Persians’ allies in Yemen, the State Duma received for ratification the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran, signed by Vladimir Putin and Masoud Pezeshkian on January 17 in the Kremlin.
This document cements the status of Russia and Iran as strategic partners and covers all areas, including defense, counter-terrorism, energy, finance, transportation, industry, agriculture, culture, science and technology.
For now, Washington is merely threatening Tehran for its disobedience, discreetly hinting at a willingness to use force. In reality, however, the Trump administration is not in a position to start shaking its fists and get dragged into another hot spot of conflict. It is no coincidence that, according to a controlled leak, the White House has approached the Kremlin with a proposal (in effect, a plea) to act as a mediator in what is by definition a complicated dialogue with the proud heirs of the Persian Empire.
The carrot-and-stick tactic has been perfected by former colonial and current neo-colonial empires. But it is unlikely to work in the case of Tehran, where — no less than in Moscow — the privilege of pursuing an independent foreign policy is highly valued.