The last time the U.S. helped bomb Yemen, it made things worse. From 2015 until 2023, the U.S. backed Saudi Arabia and the UAE in a brutal air campaign, selling them billions in weapons and enforcing a naval blockade that turned ports into graveyards of aid. The official goal was to roll back the Houthis, a Zaydi revivalist militia formally known as Ansar Allah (Partisans of God). Instead, the war killed over 377,000 people, displaced millions, and turned a fragile peace into a permanent collapse. Worse, it handed the Houthis a propaganda victory: they framed themselves as the defenders of Yemen against foreign invaders, and their grip on the north tightened with each errant bomb or blockade-induced famine. Now, as Houthi missiles and drones target Red Sea shipping, Washington is again weighing strikes. The question isn’t whether to act, but how to avoid repeating the same mistakes that turned a local insurgency into a regional menace backed by Iran and Russia. This time, force can’t be the only tool. It has to be part of a broader plan that actually weakens the Houthis instead of strengthening them. The Houthis aren’t just a militia. They’re a governing movement that runs hospitals, schools, and courts in northern Yemen. Before the war, they were a marginalized political faction from the Zaidi Shia minority, a branch of Islam distinct from both Sunni and Twelver Shia traditions. Their 2014 takeover of Sana’a, Yemen’s capital, was initially a protest against corruption and Saudi interference. The Saudi-led coalition’s response—massive airstrikes and a total blockade—didn’t just fail to push them out. It turned them into the unchallenged rulers of a de facto state. By 2022, the Houthis controlled most of Yemen’s north, including the capital, while the internationally recognized government clung to a sliver of the south backed by Saudi cash and Emirati troops. The U.S. role was never about Yemen alone. It was about Saudi Arabia’s security and Iran’s growing influence in the region. For years, Washington sold Riyadh $100 billion in weapons, provided mid-air refueling for Saudi jets, and shared intelligence to target Houthi positions. But none of it worked. The Houthis didn’t just survive—they adapted. They built drone workshops in mountain caves, mined the Red Sea with cheap but effective sea mines, and turned their slogan “Death to America, Death to Israel” into a rallying cry. Each failed strike or civilian death only deepened their claim to legitimacy. Now, Houthi attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea have forced global shipping giants to reroute, costing billions and risking a wider Middle East war. The U.S. and allies have responded with limited strikes on Houthi radar and missile sites, but these are tactical band-aids. They don’t address the root problem: a collapsed state, a broken economy, and a population that sees the Houthis as the only force still standing against foreign powers. To counter the Houthis without strengthening them, Washington needs three things it didn’t have before. First, a political track that gives Yemenis a real stake in peace—not just a Saudi-brokered deal that leaves the Houthis in power. Second, an economic lifeline that actually reaches civilians, not just warlords. And third, a regional approach that pressures Iran to stop arming the Houthis while offering incentives to disengage. The Houthis aren’t invincible. Their economy is a mess. Their governance is brutal. Their popularity is fading in some areas. But as long as the U.S. and its allies treat Yemen as a military problem instead of a political one, the group will keep winning. This time, force should be the last resort, not the first. Otherwise, the next decade in Yemen will look a lot like the last one—only with more ruins and fewer options.

What You Need to Know

  • Source: War on the Rocks
  • Published: April 17, 2026 at 07:30 UTC
  • Category: War
  • Topics: #defense · #military · #geopolitics · #war · #conflict · #counter

Read the Full Story

This is a curated summary. For the complete article, original data, quotes and full analysis:

Read the full story on War on the Rocks →

All reporting rights belong to the respective author(s) at War on the Rocks. GlobalBR News summarizes publicly available content to help readers discover the most relevant global news.

Curated by GlobalBR News · April 17, 2026

🇧🇷 Resumo em Português

O governo dos Estados Unidos corre o risco de repetir os erros cometidos no Iêmen ao lançar novos ataques contra os houthis, segundo especialistas, que alertam para o perigo de uma escalada de violência e consequências humanitárias ainda mais graves. A situação no país árabe tem sido marcada por anos de conflito, fome e colapso institucional, mas a recente resposta militar ocidental pode agravar a crise, levantando dúvidas sobre a eficácia de uma estratégia que já mostrou falhas.

O Brasil, embora não esteja diretamente envolvido no conflito iemenita, tem interesse em acompanhar de perto as ações internacionais na região, especialmente em um momento em que a estabilidade do Oriente Médio influencia a segurança global e os preços de commodities como o petróleo. Além disso, a crise humanitária no Iêmen já deixou mais de 24 milhões de pessoas dependentes de ajuda internacional, e qualquer intensificação dos combates pode piorar ainda mais a situação. Para os leitores brasileiros, o caso serve como um alerta sobre os riscos de intervenções militares sem um planejamento cuidadoso, que considerem não apenas os objetivos estratégicos, mas também as consequências para as populações civis.

Se os EUA prosseguirem com os ataques, a história pode se repetir, com o fortalecimento dos houthis e um ciclo de violência que parece longe de terminar.

🇪🇸 Resumen en Español

El riesgo de que Washington repita los errores de su estrategia en Yemen se cierne sobre un nuevo bombardeo contra los hutíes, tras los fracasos previos que alimentaron su influencia y causaron víctimas civiles. Expertos advierten que una nueva ofensiva militar podría exacerbar la crisis humanitaria en el país árabe y fortalecer la narrativa de los rebeldes, que se presentan como defensores de Palestina frente a lo que consideran agresiones occidentales.

La relevancia de este escenario para el público hispanohablante radica en su impacto geopolítico, especialmente en una región donde España mantiene intereses económicos y migratorios. Una escalada militar sin resultados tangibles podría profundizar el descontento social en Oriente Medio, afectando la estabilidad global y la seguridad de las comunidades árabes en Europa. Además, la percepción de doble rasero en la política exterior de EE.UU. —que defiende derechos humanos pero prioriza intereses estratégicos— alimenta el resentimiento hacia Occidente, un debate que trasciende fronteras y que el periodismo en español debe analizar con rigor.