The fight between Saudi Arabia and Yemen is escalating at a rapid pace.
On October 11, the Houthis carried out a major attack on the airport in Saudi Arabia’s capital city, Riyadh. The strikes killed 12 and injured over 300, in what was the deadliest Houthi attack Saudi Arabia had experienced in more than a decade. This is just the latest in a string of disasters for the Saudis, who’ve been sandwiched between Houthi forces in the south and Shiite militias from Iraq in the north – which struck Saudi Arabia’s crucial East-West pipeline in September.
The pain hasn’t been contained to Saudi Arabia’s oil industry, however.
Saudi’s economic calamity
In the furtherance of their domestic development mission, “Saudi Vision 2030,” the Saudis have sought to diversify their economic portfolio. This program has involved investing in the tourism and financial sectors of the economy in order to lessen their reliance on oil revenue. In doing this, they have marketed themselves as a friendly environment for international business.
Much like the rude awakening experienced by nations in the Persian Gulf earlier this year, Saudi Arabia’s image as a safe haven for global capital has been seriously degraded by intense warfare. The ease with which Houthi missiles and drones have struck major population hubs is causing business interests to rethink their investments. The Saudi military’s performance has also been anything but confidence-inspiring. They have failed to properly defend their nation, and have been unable to mount a serious counter-offensive.
Part of this is by design. The inherent weakness of the Saudi armed forces comes from the foundational, intentional fragmentation of military institutions. The House of Saud – Saudi Arabia’s royal family – wanted to protect itself from a potential military coup. In crafting their armed forces, the Saudi royals sought to create division within the ranks. They figured that by building up many small units – as opposed to one unified military – no one segment would be powerful enough on its own to overthrow the Kingdom from within.
By prioritizing the acquisition of modern weaponry as opposed to the buildup of a capable fighting force, the Saudis have walked their nation into a catastrophe.
Who is helping MBS?
In his moment of peril, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is seeking assistance. Pakistan has pledged to militarily support the Saudis, citing the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement. France has also committed assets to Saudi Arabia, with President Emmanuel Macron saying that “Soldiers, radars, defense systems” will be used to defend Saudi energy infrastructure. Egypt’s National Defense Council – led by President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi – has announced that they plan to use “all possible forms of support” to help the Saudis.
According to Axios’ Barak Ravid, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa is said to be in discussions about potentially sending 10,000-20,000 troops to Yemen. Syria’s military under al-Sharaa includes many Islamists who fought in the Syrian civil war. The 84th Division, one of the units being considered for deployment to Yemen, consists of thousands of former Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) rebels.
HTS was originally formed under the name Jabhat al-Nusra, also known as al-Nusra Front. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – the late former leader of the Islamic State in Iraq – assisted al-Sharaa, who at the time was known as Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, in creating the group in August 2011 as the Syrian affiliate of al-Qaeda.
According to Ravid, the U.S. “doesn’t oppose” the idea of sending these troops into combat, saying that the effort could strengthen ties between Syria and Saudi Arabia.
MBS has also been relentless in his push for direct U.S. military involvement. In September, he called President Donald Trump multiple times to request that he assist the Saudis, specifically that he order the U.S. military to engage in direct strikes against Houthi forces.
Debate has commenced within the Trump administration and at the Pentagon. Originally, it was reported that Trump declined MBS’ request, telling him that the U.S. would not militarily intervene in Yemen. But with the situation worsening in Saudi Arabia and given the context of the recent Houthi attacks on the airport in Riyadh, U.S. strikes are once again being seriously considered.
When asked on October 11 if the U.S. planned to strike the Houthis, Trump responded, “We may. We’re going to look at it.”
“We just found out about the recent attack. So, we’ll make a decision. We move very quickly,” Trump said.
A clash at the Pentagon has begun. The Washington Post reported on October 5 that a “tense” meeting occurred with top U.S. officials. According to The Post, Gen. Michael Kurilla – a hawkish voice urging strikes on Yemen – and Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Charles Brown Jr. – a skeptic of the utility of such attacks – argued over the assessments being given to Trump. Brown Jr. suggested new assessments be prepared, ones that outline the potential results of military action.
Brown Jr. was met with a harsh response from Kurilla, who reportedly said: “The time for assessments is over.” People familiar with the matter told The Post that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth sided with Kurilla in the exchange.
Military action against the Houthis is becoming a more accepted idea amongst the top brass of defense policymakers, who now await a decision from Trump. It seems that the hawks have once again fought their way to Trump’s desk, silencing dissenting voices before the president can even hear them out.
An unwinnable war
Despite the bluster coming from those advocating for intervention, a move to engage in strikes on Yemen would be a dreadful mistake.
For starters, nearly eight months of fighting against Iran has seriously damaged America’s regional infrastructure. Bases across the Middle East, which have already been battered from Iranian attacks, could be targeted by Houthi missiles and drones if the U.S. strikes Yemen. The bases are particularly vulnerable right now due to the U.S. military’s shortage of both Patriot and THAAD missile defense systems.
Similarly, the Houthis could attempt to strike American naval ships in the Arabian Sea. Ship-launched SM-3 and SM-6 missile interceptors – systems which have been used during the Iran war – would be needed to defend against Houthi retaliation. While they weren’t depleted to the same level as the ground-launched interceptors, stockpiles of the naval systems aren’t estimated to return to pre-war status until 2029 due to the lengthy production process. This creates a dangerous situation, and the Houthis wouldn’t need to sink an American ship in order to create a crisis that sends a message to the world.
The war’s core objectives were also not achieved. The Iranian regime remains in power, the Strait of Hormuz has continued to be a risky route for transit, and the nuclear file – which we were told was the primary dispute over which this war was launched – has not been addressed.
Before we dive haphazardly into another war, we also ought to consider what it is we seek to achieve, and the likely costs associated with such a goal. If the objective of a U.S. intervention is to eliminate or substantially degrade the Houthis, the history of our and Saudi Arabia’s record on this front might be of interest.
In the spring of 2025, Trump authorized Operation Rough Rider, a weeks-long campaign to degrade the Houthis’ ability to restrict shipping in the Red Sea. From March to May, bombs dropped in and around Yemen’s capital, Sanaa. The clash ended with an Omani-brokered ceasefire, and the Houthis’ missile and drone stockpiles, along with many of their launchers, remained intact.
Due to a lack of on-the-ground intelligence in Yemen, tracking the whereabouts of the Houthi forces – and their leadership, in particular – was very difficult. As a result, the war was “expensive but inconclusive,” as The New York Times put it. U.S. officials told The Times that over $200 million worth of munitions were used in just the first three weeks of fighting. In the first month, the war’s total cost was $1 billion.
And in the end, nothing of substance was achieved.
Saudi Arabia also failed to defeat the Houthis from 2015 to 2022 when they – with U.S. support – fought a war that resulted in one of the deadliest humanitarian crises on the globe.
Starting under President Barack Obama, the U.S. worked alongside Saudi Arabia to wage war on Yemen. The U.S. supplied them with arms, gave them intelligence, and refueled their aircraft, all while the Saudis targeted civilian infrastructure. Farms, food sites, shopping centers, and a school bus filled with 40 children were all bombed in Saudi Arabia’s years-long campaign. As the war went on, starvation became more prevalent amongst the civilian population.
The New York Times had the following to say when explaining Obama’s rationale for assisting Saudi Arabia in this war:
“Among other reasons, the White House needed to placate the Saudis as the administration completed a nuclear deal with Iran, Saudi Arabia’s archenemy. That fact alone eclipsed concerns among many of the president’s advisers that the Saudi-led offensive would be long, bloody and indecisive.”
While hundreds of thousands of people died in the war, the Houthis have grown into a much larger and much stronger fighting force. The war, while incredibly brutal, was a strategic failure for the Saudis.
Don’t do it
The previous bouts against the Houthis were incredibly costly, resulted in unimaginable bloodshed, and ended in defeat for the Saudis and Americans. What is it about the current circumstances that makes U.S. officials believe this time will be any different? On a similar note, knowing the inhumane manner in which Saudi Arabia has conducted itself in Yemen, why should Americans look to attach themselves to yet another immoral war? Whose interests would that serve?
An entanglement in Yemen is the last thing the American people need right now. This administration remains lost in a world of uncertainty regarding both Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, and it would be incredibly unwise to launch yet another war of choice at this moment of transparent weakness. There is no plausible justification for engaging in a new military operation on Saudi Arabia’s behalf.
Mr. President, don’t strike Yemen.
Nolan Denaro is a political analyst, writer, and host of “The Quest For Clarity” podcast, available on YouTube and Spotify. He is a columnist at Antiwar.com, and his work has been published by Responsible Statecraft, the Libertarian Institute, The Daily Caller, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He writes on U.S. foreign policy, economics, and current events, with a particular focus on war and imperialism. He maintains a personal Substack blog, and you can follow him on X @nolandenaro. Nolan can be reached for correspondence at nolansdenaro@icloud.com.
