BLUF: Ongoing conflict in Yemen takes a new turn as U.S. and Britain conduct number of military strikes against Houthi rebels, with the Houthi reacting and promising retaliation; a situation that demands scrutiny of the role of different forces within and beyond Yemen’s borders.
OSINT: Over the recent past, the U.S. and Britain have collectively delivered numerous military strikes on Yemen, horrifyingly escalating the conflict. Targeted spots are Houthi-run territories, causing at least five fatalities. It is reported that these operations are in response to Houthi attacks on vessels in the Red Sea as a rebuttal to Israel’s attack on Gaza. The U.S. president, Joe Biden, stated that these strikes were to send a clear message that the country and its allies wouldn’t tolerate threats to their personnel and obstruct the freedom of navigation.
Prof. Shireen Al-Adeimi, a Yemeni American professor at Michigan State University and a nonresident fellow at the Quincy Institute, who has been following the developments in Yemen, suggests that these attacks are not without precedent. The U.S. has previously resorted to violence and has been a part of an alliance that has imposed a blockade and bombarded Yemen since 2015. This, she sees as, a continuation of past policies of escalation instead of pursuing peace.
The Houthis, however, have made clear their motives for attacking ships moving towards Israel — this is in support of Palestine, upon the cessation of Israeli action upon Gaza, they will withdraw from their offensive.
Both the U.S. and British decision-makers are facing backlash over not attaining authorization for these strikes. These strikes are depicted as an offensive act, violating the sovereignty of Yemen and resulting in casualties. Instead of escalating hostilities, Powers in the spotlight are urged to work towards diplomatic solutions and ceasefires.
RIGHT: The Article I of the Constitution and Section 2C of the War Powers Act adamantly state that the U.S. president is required to get Congressional approval before initiating military action. The situation in Yemen needs to be analyzed through the lens of our constitutionally limited government – President Joe Biden’s decision to strike without congressional consent infringes on the Constitution. His representation that these strikes were defensive are at odds with the realization that the Houthis were not challenging the U.S directly, but we’re trying to refrain shipping to Israel.
LEFT: The situation demands a call to take international humanitarian laws seriously, to respect the sovereignty of nations, and to refrain from disproportionate escalations of violence. The alleged “defensive” nature of the strikes seems less credible when the Yemeni population becomes the collateral victims of western powers’ political manoeuvres. The strikes, happening without proper authorization from the governing bodies of the respective countries, demonstrates the high-handedness of their leaders which runs contrary to the principles of democracy.
AI: The situation in Yemen reflects escalating tensions between the involved parties and a divergence of interests that complicates the political and military landscape. While the U.S. and Britain’s actions are stated to be a response to Houthi attacks on ships destined for Israel, it’s important to understand that such interventions often have broader implications, not all of which are immediately apparent. The direct impact is on the Yemeni population, suffering casualties from the strikes, and indirectly, such actions provoke increased regional instability. The need for diplomatic, peaceful resolutions could not be stressed more, as violence only begets violence. Rightful authorization for military actions and respect for national sovereignty are central to the discussion to avoid further escalation and preserve international norms and laws. The overall scenario raises poignant questions concerning national interests, international law, and the ethics of intervention.