U.S. and U.K. forces conducted attacks against Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen earlier this month in response to Houthis attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea which have resulted in a 29% drop in shipping through the area. The attacks raise concerns, shared by many in the US government, that the current conflict in the Middle East, which began with the Oct 7 Hamas attack on Israel, could spread. If the concern is real, were the attacks necessary or could the U.S. and U.K. have taken another approach?
Who are the Houthis? What do they want?
The Houthis are one of many factions involved in the ongoing Yemeni Civil War which includes forces backed by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Al-Qaeda. The war began when Houthi forces took control of Sanaa, the capital city, in September 2014 leading the Yemeni government to flee the country. Both sides in the conflict have been accused of war crimes and of using child soldiers.
The Shiite-Muslim Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah, have been attacking shipping in the Red Sea since mid-November, disrupting shipping through the Suez Canal, While the Houthi’s military pales in comparison to that of the US, its attacks are aimed at promoting themselves as defenders of the people of Gaza, pressuring Israel and its allies to end the war, and distracting “from their own domestic challenges” which includes a humanitarian crisis.
Operation Prosperity Guardian
On 23 December 2023, in response to the Houthi attacks, the US announced the creation of a 12 nation security operation, code-named Operation Prosperity Guardian, to “uphold the foundational principle of freedom of navigation.” Prior to the U.S. and U.K. attacks, the U.S. Navy had shot down Houthi drones, missiles, and rockets but had not retaliated against the sites firing them. As this is an escalation and risks an expansion of the current conflict in the area, two questions arise, “is it necessary?” and “is it justifiable?”
“Justifiable” in this instance means “legal.”
I am not an expert in international law nor maritime law but from what I’ve read I’m inclined to answer with a tentative “yes.” The question of international vs. territorial waters is largely moot as, pursuant to Article 26 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Yemen agreed “not to levy any charges ‘upon foreign ships by reason only of their passage through the territorial sea’” and consequently the vessels in question are legally transiting through the area. Furthermore, according to several international legal experts, the “attacks by the Houthis might, in effect, constitute an unlawful de facto tariff, in contravention of Article 26,” and while breaking international agreements and laws may not in itself be justification for a military response, attacking foreign vessels arguably is.
On 10 January 2024, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2722 but stopped short of authorizing the use of force against the Houthis, it affirms “the right of Member States, in accordance with international law, to defend their vessels from attacks, including those that undermine navigational rights and freedoms.” Consequently, the U.S. and U.K. are using the Houthis attacks to justify their military strikes on the grounds of self-defense and have stated in written letters to the UN Security Council under Article 50 of the UN Charter that the attacks “will preserve navigation rights and freedoms.” While the legal basis for the response seems clear, the situation on the ground in Yemen complicates matters.
Were the Houthis the internationally recognized government of Yemen then the Houthi attacks would be a clear casus belli and an attack on the sites would clearly be legal. However, as the Republic of Yemen, not the Houthis, are the internationally recognized government it should be the responsibility of the government to deal with attacks originating in its territory. The fact that the Yemeni government is unable to do this and that the Houthis hold themselves up to be the true government could be used to argue that the strikes are self-defense against another government. Furthermore, the claims that the Houthis are backed by Iran could be used to argue that Iran is the true author of the attacks on shipping in the area and that the retaliatory airstrikes are attacks on Iranian-held positions.
While the situation is complicated, there appears to be enough evidence on the side of the U.S. and U.K. to argue that the attacks are legal.
It’s Justifiable but is it Necessary?
Necessity may be more difficult to determine. Military strikes are only necessary if there aren’t other better approaches. Options appear limited.
“Do Nothing” is not really an argument for letting the Houthis freely attack shipping but rather that the ships in Operation Prosperity Guardian continue their strategy of shooting down the drones, missiles, etc. The Houthis have been attacking shipping since November 19th and this approach does not appear to be stopping them. Economic sanctions could be added to this approach, and it is unlikely that this would constitute a military escalation.
There are two problems, the first is “sanctions against who?” There are already sanctions against Iran and the Houthis preside over an economically shattered region so it is not clear that sanctions would accomplish much. The second problem is determining “how long “we” are willing to put up with the ongoing disruption?” Sanctions might lead to a positive outcome, but this type of approach tends to take a long time and in the interim the world would have to deal with the effect on shipping and it is important to highlight that:
10% to 15% of world trade passes through the area.
Allowing attacks to continue would force shipping companies to risk their ships or force them to follow an alternate route and that alternate route adds 3000 nautical miles and 8 to 10 transit days.
Using the Suez Canal requires expensive war risk insurance while using an alternative route adds distance and time which also adds costs. According to the Drewry World Container Index, a composite that measures global shipping costs, the cost of a 40ft container has spiked as a result and some economists argue that a lengthy disruption to Red Sea shipping could add 2% to inflation.
The argument for military strikes therefore rests on the assertion that the harm to global trade is much greater than the risk of a broadening conflict.
Conclusion
If weighing risk were easy, we wouldn’t be discussing this. The legality of the air strikes seems, if not air-tight, at least defensible. The necessity of them is another matter. With the limited information at our disposal, it is impossible to quantify the risks associated with the attacks, but one should assume that those making the decisions are in possession of more intelligence and therefore a deeper understanding of the risks and have made a prudent decision. In the end, though it may be that their hands are tied. The Red Sea is but one of the world’s many maritime “choke points” and to allow the Houthis to hold the world hostage there would invite similar actions around the world.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.