Fresh Air

On March 20, several days after US President Donald Trump announced an expansive bombing campaign against the Houthis, I warned of the possibility that either Trump could halt the bombing to incentivise negotiations with Iran on a new nuclear deal, or that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) could temporarily halt Houthi strikes in the Red Sea as a sop to get sanctions lifted as part of nuclear negotiations. “The President”, I continued, “could also simply lose patience with the campaign and approach the Houthis directly for a deal to try to stop the attacks against US ships and then claim victory.”

Unfortunately, this last scenario is exactly what happened. On May 6,  without informing Israel – the safety of which was never an aim in the US bombing campaign despite Israel constantly being targeted by Houthi missiles and drones – Trump suddenly announced he had reached a deal with the Houthis during a press briefing with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. This ceasefire was negotiated between the US and the Houthis through mediation by Oman.

The following day, Trump said, “The [Houthis] had a great capacity to withstand punishment. They took tremendous punishment. You can say there’s a lot of bravery there. It was amazing what they took. But we honor their commitment and their word.” He added implicitly that the Iranian regime had been involved and that he trusted them, thus seemingly confirming reporting by Amwaj that Iran had facilitated the agreement.

The problem is, the Houthis don’t appear to have actually conceded anything. If so, this deal amounts to a unilateral US surrender akin to the first Trump Administration’s “deal” with the Taliban.

According to the Washington Institute’s maritime incidents tracker, the Houthis had not attacked any commercial shipping since Nov. 18, 2024, and had stopped firing at the US Navy by Dec. 21, 2024. Attacks against the latter only restarted as retaliation during the Trump Administration’s bombing campaign. Despite this, most cargo ships were still choosing to go around Africa rather than risk the Red Sea.

This explains the ambivalence expressed by some of Trump’s senior officials in the infamous “Houthi PC small group” Signal chat, where the Director of National Intelligence’s (DNI) acting Chief-of-Staff Joe Kent said, “There is nothing time sensitive driving the time line. We’ll have the exact same options in a month.”

The “concessions” by the IRGC therefore weren’t really concessions at all, as the Houthis had already halted their attacks last year. This was made official on Jan. 19, the day the Israel-Hamas ceasefire entered into force, with the Houthis announcing they would now stop attacks against all vessels:

Except for vessels wholly owned by Israeli individuals or entities and/or sailing under the Israeli flag. These vessels will remain prohibited from transiting the Red Sea, Bab-el-Mandeb, the Gulf of Aden, the Arabian Sea, and the Indian Ocean at present. Sanctions on them will be stopped upon the full implementation of all phases of the agreement.

The US bombing campaign did not change the announced Houthi stance of Jan. 19 at all. In response to Trump’s announcement of a ceasefire, Houthi politburo official Deifullah al-Shami declared, “Whatever he says – we will not allow any ship, any Israeli ship, to arrive to its port until the aggression against Gaza is stopped and the siege is lifted.”

Trump himself continues to insist that the Houthis approached the US as a result of the strikes, and a recent Reuters report cited US officials claiming that US intelligence picked up “indications” that the Houthis wanted an end to the bombing in the days before the ceasefire announcement. Houthi leader Abdulmalik al-Houthi, however, claimed it was the US that had approached Oman to mediate an off-ramp for its military campaign. This was essentially confirmed by Trump Administration envoy Steve Witkoff, who reportedly said that Oman offered to mediate an off-ramp for Trump, who had grown impatient with the campaign, while Witkoff was engaged in Oman-mediated Iranian nuclear negotiations, an offer Trump immediately accepted.

America First

In my March 20 piece, I also cautioned:

The emphasis of the Trump Administration, based on the rhetoric of the President and his senior officials as well as precedents from the first Trump term, also seems to be on getting the Houthis not to fire at American ships and assets, despite lip service to freedom of navigation. Both Parnell and US Defence Secretary Hegseth have stressed that the Houthis can end the campaign if they promise not to fire at US assets, while the White House’s own announcement talks about “American [emphasis added] commercial and naval vessels,” suggesting the campaign may be focussed more on US force protection than general freedom of navigation.

On May 9, an NBC report on the ceasefire agreement, citing two US officials, confirmed this, saying, “What is known is that the agreement… pertains only to U.S. ships. The Houthis are expected to continue firing on Israel and on other countries’ ships.”

US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said the same day, “If the Houthis want to continue doing things to Israel and they hurt an American, then it becomes our business,” further appearing to confirm that the US is solely concerned with American citizens and assets.

This approach was further underlined when the US unilaterally negotiated the release of Hamas hostage and dual Israeli-American citizen Edan Alexander, announced by Trump on May 11, outside the confines of an Israel-Hamas ceasefire and without Israeli involvement.

Iran weathers the purely rhetorical intimidation

Iran has thus given up nothing while preserving its imperial control of Yemen via the Houthis, to whom it continues to transfer massive amounts of explosives and weapons and communications systems. They also appear to be achieving favourable nuclear negotiations with the US, now entering their fifth round.

All of this is bad enough, but the fact that the rhetoric employed by Trump so far outpaced intention and action has made the outcome even worse.

On March 30, I wrote in the Jerusalem Post, “If the president is yet again blustering with no follow-through, it could be the coup de grâce to already severely eroded US credibility and deterrence. Another North Korean “fire and fury” moment with no action… will be seen by US adversaries as a green light to do whatever they want.”

Any remaining doubts concerning the question of whether Trump’s frequently aggressive bluster reflected a coherent US policy can now be laid to rest. On March 17, he posted on his Truth Social account:

Let nobody be fooled! The hundreds of attacks being made by Houthi, the sinister mobsters and thugs based in Yemen, who are hated by the Yemeni people, all emanate from, and are created by, IRAN. Any further attack or retaliation by the “Houthis” will be met with great force, and there is no guarantee that that force will stop there. Iran has played “the innocent victim” of rogue terrorists from which they’ve lost control, but they haven’t lost control. They’re dictating every move, giving them the weapons, supplying them with money and highly sophisticated Military equipment, and even, so-called, “Intelligence.” Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN, and IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire!

This was reaffirmed by his then National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, who said:

We will hold not only the Houthis accountable, but we’re going to hold Iran, their backers, accountable as well. And if that means they’re targeting ships that they have put in to help their Iranian trainers, IRGC and others, that intelligence, other things that they have put in to help the Houthis attack the global economy, those targets will be on the table, too.

Two days later, on March 19, Trump posted:

Reports are coming in that while Iran has lessened its intensity on Military Equipment and General Support to the Houthis, they are still sending large levels of Supplies. Iran must stop the sending of these Supplies IMMEDIATELY. Let the Houthis fight it out themselves. Either way they lose, but this way they lose quickly. Tremendous damage has been inflicted upon the Houthi barbarians, and watch how it will get progressively worse — It’s not even a fair fight, and never will be. They will be completely annihilated!

Then, on May 1, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth warned, “Message to IRAN: We see your LETHAL support to The Houthis. We know exactly what you are doing. You know very well what the U.S. Military is capable of — and you were warned. You will pay the CONSEQUENCE at the time and place of our choosing.”

He then quoted this post with a screenshot of Trump’s original March 17 warning.

Yet nothing happened. It was indeed another “fire and fury” moment, with the Houthis walking away bruised but victorious and in firm control, having made no new concessions. While they suffered hundreds of casualties and severe damage to important military infrastructure and weapons depots from US and Israeli strikes, the group is fully intact at every level.

Conclusion

The US spent more than US $1 billion and thousands of munitions in its overstretched stockpile, losing two fighter jets and at least seven drones in the process. Moreover, its THAAD ballistic missile defence system has reportedly failed to shoot down Houthi missiles over Israel twice in one week, further eroding US deterrence around the world.

Iran will use the ceasefire to rearm and resupply the group, as it was doing even during the operation, and while Israel will continue to independently and substantially retaliate against the Houthis with strikes on energy infrastructure and ports, this will not unduly hamper their abilities. The ceasefire is unlikely to restore freedom of navigation, as the Houthis can renew attacks on commercial shipping at any time.

Meanwhile, the reported ground operation against the Houthis by local Yemeni forces, which would’ve been vital for any enduring success, is now out of the question. There is no longer a window of opportunity to deal the group a decisive blow.

This general and by now predictable pattern of Trump’s threatening rhetoric followed quickly by unilateral US capitulation, whether on foreign or trade policy – always spun as a victory without accomplishing anything of substance – has made the world a far more dangerous place for US allies and partners.