How the U.S. Should Respond to Attacks by Iran-Backed Houthis on American Ships

The Americans are trying to tamp down the possibility of an escalation of the war, by sending a diplomat to Israel to persuade Jerusalem not to raise the level of violence in Lebanon. Instead of doing that, the Bidenites should try another tack. They should first of all respond to the attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis on American and other ships. On October 10, a missile attack from Yemen targeted a guided missile destroyer, the USS Mason, but both missiles fell short; neither hit the ship. Nonetheless, the Americans did not at once respond by hitting Houthi targets in Yemen to discourage future attacks. On November 10 the Americans did send an MQ-9 Reaper drone toward Yemen, but the Houthis shot it down before it got to the country. And there have been no American attacks, as yet, on the Houthi bases in Yemen.

Now the Houthis have struck yet again, seizing a cargo ship in the Red Sea. The ship has been described as British-owned and Japanese-operated, but the Houthis claim it is “Israel-linked,” because, they assert, the ship is “owned by an Israeli.” This may be true: the ship, the Galaxy Leader, may only seem to be “British-owned” because it was registered in the Isle of Man, but it was to a company, Ray Car Carriers, which is a unit of Tel Aviv-incorporated Ray Shipping, according to LSEG data. In any case, even if the Israeli connection can be proven, seizing ships on the high seas, holding onto both them and their cargo, is a violation of international law. Israel and the Houthis, a stateless terror group that is a proxy of Iran, are not formally at war.

Why doesn’t the American military launch a major series of airstrikes on Houthi targets, both in response to the Houthi missile attacks on the USS Mason, and to the shooting down of the MQ-9 Reaper drone, and finally, for its act of piracy in seizing the Galaxy Leader? Such an attack would be welcomed by Israel, which at the moment has its hands full in Gaza and would be much relieved to have the Houthi problem taken care of by the American military. Saudi Arabia and the UAE would also welcome an American attack on the Houthis. That would be one less worry for the region, and one more worry for Iran.

Finally, the American ships in the two carrier groups off the coast of Lebanon are well-positioned to attack Hezbollah. On what grounds could Washington do so? The Americans have a score to settle with Hezbollah, which back in 1983 blew up a Marine barracks near Beirut, killing 241 Marines. Hezbollah, like Hamas, is a designated terror group. 

As long as those American carrier groups are in the eastern Mediterranean, Hezbollah is unlikely to provoke a major war with Israel. It has already seen the severe American attacks on Iranian proxies and allies in Iraq and Syria, in response to attacks on American bases in those two countries. It will continue launching missiles at Israel, about 30 a day, as it has been since October 7. All it takes, however, for such a war to start is if another Hezbollah attack were to kill a large number of Israelis in the northern Israel, or for Kataib Hezbollah, the pro-Iran militia in Iraq, to kill American soldiers, which so far it has not managed to do. Hezbollah now fears not just the IDF, which has demonstrated in Gaza the ferocity of its war-fighting capabilities, but also those powerful American carrier groups in the eastern Mediterranean that could inflict such huge damage on the Islamic Republic. Would Iran enter such a conflict on the side of Hezbollah, which would mean facing both the IDF and the American military? I don’t think Iran has a death wish. Do you?