The Huthi issue against the background of a much wider conflict                    

Dr. Mirko Wittwar & Dr.Fariborz Saremi

The US/GB strikes against the Huthis in Yemen have been a demonstration: a demonstration for the sake of deterrence. The idea is to show the Huthis that they are vulnerable and in reach of Western forces, and that they can do little about it, in the hope this might deter them from further attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea. However, in effect the strikes are a demonstration that the power of the West is limited, at least as long as one is not ready for full-scale action. Certainly the West wants to avoid full-scale war, and consequently these low-level, pinpoint strikes are, thirdly, a demonstration of reluctance.

Accordingly, the demonstration fails to achieve its first and foremost objective. Neither are the military capabilities of the Huthis significantly reduced – and indeed this cannot be reasonably expected, notwithstanding the declarations e. g. by British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak – nor are they deterred. On the contrary, the Huthis go on with their attacks, even intensifying them. This is the Huthis´ demonstration towards the West: We are not going to give in, and there is nothing you can do about it!

This raises the question of how to go on. Certainly there is no way of letting the Huthis get away with open acts of piracy which – and there can be no doubt that this is indeed the intention – severely affect the international sea routes which are so vital for worldwide economy. But it will not be sufficient to bring together a fleet to convoy ships through the Bab al-Mandab Strait and further through the Red Sea. The Huthis have demonstrated – a demonstration yet again – that they are capable of unleashing a barrage of rockets and drones which cannot all be intercepted: notwithstanding the efforts by the vessels already in place, meanwhile quite a number of ships have been hit. This will make even more shipping companies avoid the Red Sea-Suez Canal route altogether and redirect their ships all the way around Africa. Interception would have to achieve a one-hundred per cent rate to make this passage safe again, and this cannot reasonably be expected. In this sense, the air strikes are a possible answer, yet they are clearly insufficient.

For once, the Huthi equipment is difficult, if not almost impossible, to destroy because it is scattered across a large number of places and highly mobile. The destruction of command posts and other infrastructure will hardly impress a kind of guerrilla army which does not need much of this. And as the Huthis are first and foremost fanatic religious believers of the Shia faith, they will not even be deterred by the complete destruction of the part of Yemen they control, indeed not even by the threat of their own physical destruction, as they are more of less indifferent even to their personal fate. Threat, and thus far the West has only uttered a threat, will not work on these people, even less so as they are backed by Iran, politically and in terms of weapons supplies. For them, this is what counts most. And it may even be that they really believe, as they openly claim, that they will be those to bring down the `Great Satan´, the USA, which for them as well as for Iran and all its proxies is just a word for the West in general, for its values and its ways of life. Thus, neither deterrence nor pinpoint strikes will achieve the desired effect.

The only way, we may like it or not, would be the deployment of ground forces in Yemen, which would be capable of conquering and holding territory, at least long enough to identify and destroy the Huthi´s capabilities to wage war. This, however, would mean further escalation, which the West as well as the regional powers want to avoid almost at any costs. As long as such considerations dominate the approach, no feasible solution is in sight.

However, the situation on the Red Sea as well as in the whole Near East must be brought into a wider context. There is general agreement that the Hamas attack on Israel of October 7^th last year, Hezbollah´s military activities on the Lebanon-Israel border, and indeed the Huthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea are all backed by Iran. Notwithstanding all denials, Iran has just recently indirectly admitted that it is behind all this, that it indeed functions as kind of a coordinator. On January 17^th Iran´s Foreign Minister stated bluntly that an end of Israel´s attacks on the Gaza Strip would terminate the `military actions and crises in the region´, adding that this included the situation on the Red Sea. Such a statement makes sense only if Iran is in a position to achieve just this: stopping or unleashing the terrorist and military actions in the region at will. Was this not the case, Mr. Amir-Abdollahian would not be in a position to make such a statement. Thus, the power which is behind the current military conflicts and general unrest in the region is no other than Iran, and consequently it is Iran which must be dealt with.

Yet the context is even wider. Iran leans on a very powerful ally, which is Russia, and then on another, perhaps even more powerful ally, which is China. Together, Iran and Russia are already in control in Syria, which has been reduced to something like a joint Iranian-Russian province (with acting President Bashar al-Assad as a puppet, being allowed to further exploit the country for his personal gain, but nothing more). Russia´s interest is in weakening the West whenever and wherever possible, and this independently of the Russian war on Ukraine. Russian President Putin pursues overall goals which go far beyond Ukraine: pushing the US out of Europe, gaining control over Europe `from Vladivostok to Lisbon´ – a literal statement – and re-establishing Russia as a world power which, as is his hope, will be superior to the USA. China´s  aspirations are quite similar: incorporating Taiwan – by help of war if necessary – and replacing the USA as the dominant world power. Both have correctly identified the West as the major obstacle on their way to achieve these goals.

What is currently going on in the Near East must be seen against this background. Hamas´s attack of October 7^th was certainly not planned in the Kremlin, and also not in detail in Tehran, however it was the Iranian leadership which had to give the green light, otherwise Hamas would not have dared such a major attack, given their complete dependence on Iranian support. Iran could easily have stopped any attack on Israel by Hamas had its leadership not agreed. The sheer fact that the attack happened is sufficient proof that Iran – at least indirectly – had a hand in it. To this there adds that indeed there was a preparatory meeting of top representatives of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon in the summer of 2023.

However, in a way the same holds for Russia. As stated above, of course the Kremlin was not immediately involved, and the Russian leadership need not even have known about the plans. However, Iran could be sure that Russia would approve, indeed be pleased, for any severe crisis in the Near East means distraction of the West and the USA foremost from the war in Ukraine and consequently a dissipation of Western forces. To give just one example: There exists a US armoury in Israel, to supply the country in case of need. Since Russia´s assault on Ukraine, a considerable supply of weapons to Ukraine used to go to the country precisely from this armoury. This has come to a halt, as now Israel is in need of immediate weapons supplies. And this plays in the hands of Russia, of course. But there is even more: turmoil in the Near East absorbs the West´s capabilities which are anyway sadly limited and can then not be brought to play against Russia in Ukraine or elsewhere. How much Russia is an active stakeholder in the current Near East crisis became obvious at the latest when immediately after October 7^th President Putin officially and openly – indeed demonstratively – received leading figures of Hamas along with their Iranian sponsors in the Kremlin.

Thus, things are connected. In the Near East it is not really about Israel and the Palestinians – Hamas, who praise themselves as the champions of the Palestinian cause, actually count among the most brutal oppressors of the Palestinian people; Hezbollah pursues not Palestinian but Iranian interests and even officially boasts of this; the Huthi´s sole interest in the Gaza war is their own prestige and recognition as a  major player in the region and supporting Iran´s interests as the leading Shia power – it is part of a global power play, a struggle between the authoritarian powers – Russia, Iran, China, with North Korea as an appendix – and the liberal, democratic West. The current situation much resembles the political constellation of World War II: a bloc of authoritarian dictatorships vs. the liberal societies of the West. It may be premature to speak of World War III, but this is already a global conflict, purposefully triggered by the above mentioned powers who believe that now their time has come.

As yet the West is still trying to prevent escalation, thus the limited strikes against the Huthi and the attempts to placate both Israel and its Arab neighbours. However, a conflict of the kind which is currently unfolding requires much more: determinedness, the readiness to take on the opponent(s), even ruthlessness of a Churchillian kind. Currently these qualities are largely missing. Instead, the West is still attempting to prevent the as yet regional conflicts, i. e. Ukraine and the Near East, from spilling over. However, it must be understood that these regional conflicts are interconnected and part precisely of this global conflict the West still wants to prevent while not seeing that it cannot be prevented anymore because it has already started.

If this is so, limited pinpoint strikes like those against the Huthi are simply inadequate. All they can achieve is endless perpetuation without decisive outcome. What is needed instead is a reaction which is adequate to the graveness of the situation. It must be understood that a global conflict about the fundamental issue of freedom vs. suppression requires an appropriate attitude, an attitude which is adequate to the challenge. As concerns the Huthi, this means: if the Huthi have been identified as a threat, this threat must be eradicated, and one must be ready to implement all necessary measures. Once deterrence has failed – and in this case it has failed dismally – what is needed is the iron fist.

This is not to say that the iron fist need not be used prudently, carefully, and sometimes just by presenting it. But where and when necessary, it must strike decisive blows, and this not only in the Near East but everywhere in the context of this global conflict. This may and probably will come at a cost also for the West. However, the alternative would be perhaps gradual yet final defeat, with consequences that would be much graver and more painful than the price to be paid if the West faces the challenge. Freedom is not for free, some price has to be paid. What the West is currently trying to do is having the cake and eating it, i. e. attempting to defend itself without making the necessary efforts. This will not work.

Dr. Mirko Wittwar

e-mail: MirkoWittwar@aol.com

Dr.Fariborz Saremi

Strategic analyst,

member of the Hamburg branch of foreign and security policy

of the German CDU Party and

Coordinator of the Iranian National Unity Movement – Hamburg

e-mail: fari-saremi@gmx.de

++49/171/6012866                                                                                                    18. 01. 2024