The Red Sea challenge is a dangerous balancing act in which the protagonists flex their muscles, strike, but at the same time try to avoid all-out conflict. Even though day by day we are approaching the point of no return.
On Sunday, U.S. waterway protection forces responded to another act of piracy by the pro-Iranian Houthis by destroying three small boats that had attempted to attack a cargo ship with helicopters. An alternative maneuver, that of the militiamen, to launch missiles/drones, a signal of the desire not to stop. The faction recalled the “martyrdom” of its men and reiterated that it would continue attacks on maritime transport as long as Israel remained in the Gaza Strip. Chained crises with far-reaching effects.
Facing repeated attacks, the White House has three needs: ensure security on a strategic trade route; avoid escalation; He resisted pressure from a wing of Congress that accuses Joe Biden of being too cautious. According to the media, the Pentagon is considering plans to increase the strength of the retaliation, and the sinking of the boats is a first test of a limited but direct confrontation. There are those who do not rule out cruise missile attacks, as happened in 2016, operations against bases used to launch drones and anti-ship missile batteries.
The Americans could try to introduce “rules of engagement” similar to those used with the militias – always backed by Iran – in Syria and Iraq: any armed provocation will receive an appropriate response. An attempt to enforce a principle of deterrence without triggering another war. Scenario feared by Washington, but also by local allies such as Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, as well as Western allies. France and Italy support shipping protection but have withdrawn from the coalition formed by the United States. Britain is interventionist: according to the Times newspaper, it is ready to trade with its fighters. The central point remains: Will any military steps end the militia threat? The solution does not only depend on the United States, but is obviously linked to the decisions of the Houthis and to a large extent to the influence of the Iranian sponsor.
The Yemeni movement is using the incursions to underline its solidarity with the Palestinians, to demonstrate the ability to influence the situation through relatively cheap means (but with great impact), to raise its own status and to cooperate with Tehran Anyone interested in maneuvering without assistance will pay a price. According to analysts, the Houthis and the Iranians are pursuing a binary strategy: they conduct “slow fire” (here are the selected attacks) and hope to avoid irreversible steps.
Iran follows a habitual path in which its leaders use strong words but then leave the facts to friendly militias, which are often deployed to counter Israel's strikes. A formal attempt to separate responsibilities. Jerusalem, in turn, is doing everything it can to expose the operational, ideological and military connections between the ayatollahs and the movements. Washington's approach is mixed. To contain tensions, the Americans initially viewed Tehran's involvement in the numerous conspiracies, including the Houthi attacks, as minor. And they said it publicly. A position that was then changed due to the worsening of the dangers to shipping. US intelligence accuses the Iranians of specifically supporting Yemeni fighters in their operations around the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait. A rethink that could foreshadow a US retaliation full of unknowns. Whatever the developments, a serious lesson has been learned from this story. The system is fragile and one small actor – if well organized – is enough to shake it up.