The National Interest reveals a proposal calling on the US military to blockade or seize the port of Hodeidah

The American magazine, The National Interest, revealed a suggestion in some circles in Washington, DC, that to end the threat of the Houthi rebels from Yemen, the US military must either seize or blockade the Yemeni port of Hodeidah, noting that this argument is logical at first glance.

The magazine said in a report prepared by Brandon J. Wichert that this port is the primary entry point for imports to Yemen. It has also proven to be a major conduit for the delivery of illicit supplies and weapons to the Houthi rebels who hide in the foothills of Yemen’s mountains, camp along its beaches, and periodically fire anti-ship ballistic missiles at the nearest U.S. Navy warship.

But it is strange - according to the writer - to conclude that the American forces must be the ones to control and manage this port, and to ensure that the Houthis and their Iranian agents operating in the region do not continue to use Hodeidah to achieve their malicious goals.

"Of course, calls to blockade and/or seize the port included calls for pluralism," he continued.

But after twenty years of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, everyone knows that “multilateral missions” of this kind in the Middle East inevitably lead to the U.S. military taking on more responsibilities than it should have.

Geopolitical quicksand

The U.S. military has spent the better part of the past twenty-four years trying to control territory, shape the social and political environment, and determine winners and losers in the Middle East.

The end result of these massive efforts was highly questionable: thousands of American men and women lost their lives, trillions of dollars were burned, and the entire region was destabilized (making further demands on the U.S. military).

The report said that the Middle East is the geopolitical equivalent of quicksand. This does not mean that the United States has no interests there: it certainly does.

But the idea that the U.S. military should continue to hold territory in Syria, or “own” the Gaza Strip, or seize a port in distant Yemen in order to crush a subset of the rebels is ludicrous.

Even in the fight against al-Qaeda and the Islamic State—which remain a real threat to the United States—America’s success has been mixed. Since 9/11, global jihad has spread to more places than ever before.

Moreover, today’s extremists are more resilient than bin Laden’s team of jihadists ever were. They continue to emerge. The reason is that the American strategy for dealing with these forces is flawed, to say the least.

Siege of Hodeidah or annexation? What about not besieging it?

Now come calls to annex the important port of Hodeidah to America. These calls come, at least in part, because the prospects of ending the joint naval blockade there between the U.S. Navy and its regional partners are slim. Doing so would make any American units deployed there a huge target. That should not be allowed.

Could US forces seize and hold the port? Maybe. Would that stop the Houthi threat? Maybe. Is there a better way to deal with this threat? Definitely.

Here’s a simpler suggestion: bomb the port into ashes. Israel already did this in a more discreet way with its fifth-generation F-35I Adir fighter jets last summer.

But this strike was not enough to end the threat—though it did slow the pace of Houthi strikes against Israeli targets. The Israelis and Saudis need to do more.

“If the port of Hodeidah is the main logistics hub for the Iranian-backed Houthis, and if the Houthis refuse to stop terrorizing Americans, their allies, and international shipping in the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait, then the port should be struck as a legitimate military target,” the report said. “Indeed, this port should be put out of service, regardless of the humanitarian consequences.”

But that doesn’t mean the United States needs to use its own forces to do this. Instead, Washington should insist that America’s regional partners, to whom American taxpayers send vast sums of their hard-earned money on an annual basis, carry out the airstrikes.

“Whether through the Saudi monarchy or democratic Israel, efforts to close the port of Hodeidah must remain local. There is absolutely no need for American ground troops, nor for expensive American warships. Moreover, these warships are needed in more important theaters of war than the Middle East,” he added.

“No more entanglements in the Middle East, Mr. President,” the magazine told Trump. Under normal circumstances, regional actors close to Yemen would clearly not act in any way. They would certainly bomb the site occasionally when things got tense.

But regional actors will continue to rely on Uncle Sam to do the hard work. The Trump administration campaigned on a platform of not getting involved in new foreign entanglements—particularly in the Middle East. The White House must deliver on that promise.

“We call for fighting the Houthis when they threaten U.S. Navy warships or important trade routes,” the writer concluded. “But let’s leave it to the Saudis and Israelis to find more sustainable solutions to the Houthi threat. Washington has larger geopolitical goals.”