Nournews: The U.S. now faces an adversary with years of experience in warfare under harsh conditions, one that will not easily surrender.
Trump’s directive to launch extensive military operations against Yemen’s Ansarullah forces was ostensibly aimed at ensuring international maritime security in the Red Sea and countering threats against commercial fleets. However, in practice, this move has led to an even more complex and widespread crisis. The past two decades have shown that military intervention in regions with intricate internal dynamics not only fails to achieve strategic objectives but often shifts the battlefield balance against foreign interveners.
Why are the Houthis a strategic challenge for the U.S?
Unlike what some analysts in Washington may assume, Ansarullah is not a minor insurgent group that can be weakened with a few airstrikes. Over more than a decade of continuous combat against one of the most advanced military coalitions in the region, the Houthis have successfully expanded their combat capabilities and evolved into a highly organized force with significant tactical and logistical expertise.
Ansarullah’s organizational structure follows asymmetric warfare strategies, heavily relying on mobility, the use of mountainous terrain, and the ability to strike strategic targets at minimal cost. Their operations in the Red Sea have demonstrated their ability to disrupt regional security equations significantly.
Intelligence challenges and operational limitations
One of the primary reasons why U.S. airstrikes on Ansarullah have failed to produce decisive results is the intelligence challenge in Yemen. Unlike Iraq and Syria, where the U.S. has extensive intelligence networks to identify and precisely target opposition forces, Yemen’s geography and the localized nature of its conflicts have made it an intelligence blind spot for the West.
Ansarullah has effectively minimized its vulnerabilities to airstrikes by employing tactics such as military equipment camouflage, decentralized operational bases, and strategic dispersion. Additionally, due to the nature of guerrilla warfare, completely eliminating their mobile missile launchers and weapons through airstrikes is nearly impossible.
Geopolitical dimensions of the conflict and its consequences
Yemen’s geographic position and the strategic significance of the Red Sea mean that security developments in this region extend beyond a mere local conflict. Shipping routes passing through this area are vital to the global economy, and any disruption can have widespread impacts on the supply chain of essential goods and energy.
However, Washington’s entry into this conflict without a clear exit strategy risk entangling the U.S. in a prolonged war of attrition. History has proven that relying solely on military power to alter battlefield dynamics—without addressing the political and social aspects of the crisis—fails to yield effective results and often exacerbates conflicts.
Limitations of air power and the need to reassess Washington’s strategy
Although U.S. airstrikes may temporarily impact Ansarullah’s operational capabilities, they cannot independently lead to the group’s lasting weakening. Recent Middle Eastern conflicts have demonstrated that air campaigns, without precise intelligence support and ground troop presence, are insufficient to alter power structures in a region.
Moreover, continued strikes may provoke stronger retaliatory actions, escalating threats against U.S. interests and its allies. In this context, Washington’s policymakers must confront the fundamental question: How long can they sustain military engagement without a clear long-term vision for its consequences?
The Urgency of reassessing Washington’s policies
Trump’s intervention in Yemen has not reduced regional security threats as initially expected; instead, it has heightened instability. Ignoring Yemen’s internal complexities, underestimating Ansarullah’s asymmetric warfare capabilities, and lacking a clear crisis management strategy have placed the U.S. in a situation where withdrawal will be extremely difficult.
Continuing this strategy will not only impose greater costs on Washington but may also trigger new crises that will be far more challenging to manage than avoiding the conflict in the first place. Therefore, reassessing interventionist policies and shifting toward diplomatic solutions may be the only realistic option to prevent further regional escalation.
NOURNEWS