Pressure Grows as Houthis Withstand US Campaign
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The Yemeni Houthis have shown growing defiance toward the U.S., despite more than nine weeks of airstrikes aimed at deterring attacks in the Red Sea and on Israel, escalating tensions with Iran over its support for the group.
Newsweek has reached out to the Pentagon, Houthi officials, as well as the Israel Defense Force and Iran's foreign ministry for comment.
Why It Matters
The Houthi's escalating and damaging attacks mark a significant shift in the Middle East conflict. President Donald Trump has vowed to annihilate the militant group and the prolonged campaign has prompted additional U.S. military deployments.
This photo released by the European Union's Operation Aspides naval force shows the Greek-flagged oil tanker Sounion burning in the Red Sea following a series of attacks by Yemen's Houthi rebels on Monday, Sept. 2,...
This photo released by the European Union's Operation Aspides naval force shows the Greek-flagged oil tanker Sounion burning in the Red Sea following a series of attacks by Yemen's Houthi rebels on Monday, Sept. 2, 2024. More
European Union's Operation Aspides/AP
What To Know
Since October 7, 2023, Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping and strikes on Israel have been a key part of the Iran-supported armed groups' response to the Gaza war. In 2025, the U.S. ramped up pressure through intensified airstrikes and renewed sanctions to cut off their financial and arms supply networks.
Crews embarked on USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) and USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) resupply at sea and operate 24/7, targeting Iran-backed Houthi terrorists within Houthi controlled areas of Yemen.#HouthisAreTerrorists pic.twitter.com/TgT1dKEVcr — U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) May 2, 2025
Over a month into the campaign, the U.S. military claimed it had destroyed hundreds of Houthi targets and eliminated key commanders, while the Houthis said they had downed multiple MQ-9 Reaper drones and caused the loss of a fighter jet, which the U.S. says fell overboard from the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier.
On Sunday, a ballistic missile launched by the Houthis struck near Ben Gurion International Airport, evading interception by the Arrow 3 and U.S. THAAD systems—an unusual breach that raised questions about evolving Houthi missile technology. The Israeli military said it launched an investigation.
"They're experts on missiles. I mean they actually make missiles, nobody thought that, but they make missiles," Trump said during an Oval Office press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in April.
Experts have cautioned since the early days of the strikes ordered on March 15 are unlikely to counter entrenched power in guerrilla warfare and territorial control.
"Washington must avoid acting in Yemen without at least coordinating with its regional allies in the Gulf, specifically the UAE and Saudi Arabia," Research Fellow Farea al-Muslimi and Associate Fellow Thomas Juneau at Chatham House Middle East and North Africa Program noted in an analysis published in April.
But direct involvement may be elusive, as both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are reluctant to reengage militarily in Yemen after years of costly involvement that failed to defeat the Houthis. "However, both the Saudis and Emiratis have a vested interest in how the war ends and may provide more covert support to forces on the ground", Emily Milliken, Associate Director at the Atlantic Council's Middle East Programs told Newsweek.
On Tuesday, the United Kingdom joined the United States in a coordinated military operation targeting Houthi positions, part of ongoing efforts to secure Red Sea shipping lanes. But Egypt's President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi pushed back against Trump's request to support the U.S. operations, according to The Wall Street Journal, despite losses in the Suez Canal's revenues as a result of the maritime disruption.
Meanwhile, the Houthis, who have been losing hundreds of fighters, have continued to mobilize against the U.S. and Israel, while Iran has dismissed accusations of supporting the group and warned both countries against threats towards its territory.
A Yemeni soldier inspects the damage reportedly caused by U.S. airstrikes in Sanaa, Yemen, Sunday, April 27, 2025.
A Yemeni soldier inspects the damage reportedly caused by U.S. airstrikes in Sanaa, Yemen, Sunday, April 27, 2025.
Osamah Abdulrahman/AP Photo
What People Are Saying
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office on X: "President Trump is absolutely right! Attacks by the Houthis emanate from Iran. Israel will respond to the Houthi attack against our main airport AND, at a time and place of our choosing, to their Iranian terror masters."
Emily Milliken, Associate Director of Media and Communications for the N7 Initiative at the Atlantic Council's Middle East Programs told Newsweek: "The Houthis' desire to strike Israel in such an important site for tourism underscores the group remains undeterred by the US air strike campaign. As long as the group's senior leadership remains intact, we can expect them to continue strikes targeting Israeli territory and maritime traffic in retaliation to US strikes and to showcase they are undeterred."
What Happens Next
The escalation is raising regional stakes, with rival Yemeni forces preparing ground offensives and increasing concerns of a potential Iran-Israel confrontation, as the U.S. intensifies its military involvement in the region.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Column: Will Tesla suffer if Musk alienates both political wings?
Donald Trump and Elon Musk — two epic disrupters of U.S. politics and the automotive industry, respectively and vice versa. Over the past year, they united over the election and efforts to cut government spending. They parted ways amicably … and then started trashing each other. It escalated quickly with Musk suggesting that the president be impeached and that he is implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein child-prostitution scandal. Musk later reportedly called the president before posting that he regretted some of his words: 'They went too far.' It was a remarkable breakup — incredible drama between the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man, who had been the closest of allies for hundreds of days of campaigning and governing. To the extent that it was a reality TV train wreck, I'd just as soon leave it be. But since the primary business in Musk's remarkable portfolio is nominally an automaker, it actually matters in this industry we cover. Sign up for Automotive Views, Automotive News' weekly showcase of opinions, insights, ideas and thought leadership. Love it or hate it, this disruptive era in which we live is providing us all with some real-life experiments in economics — the likes of which we probably thought we would never see. For decades, basically everyone who went to college was taught in an economics or history class that widespread tariffs would do more harm than good. Trump argues for a different approach, and he's pursuing it. Or he's pursuing it to negotiate for something else. In either case, we're now seeing how that works: So far, there's been a lot of paralysis, especially among suppliers and foreign automakers, but also a big investment announced recently by General Motors. His political strategy has been unorthodox, yet he's won two electoral colleges and one popular vote. He's only the 21st president to win two elections. So he's had success, whether some people like it or not. Same for Musk, of course: He approached the auto industry unlike anyone else — with an expensive electric car — had a couple of near-total collapses, and came out as the world's richest man and CEO of the world's most valuable automaker. That success helped propel his rocket business SpaceX and other ventures such as Starlink satellites and Twitter, which he bought and renamed X. But the disruptive move I'm watching was his decision to be an automaker CEO who got personally and financially involved in partisan politics. While new-vehicle sales skew to the affluent, when you sell something in the millions or tens of millions, a brand or model has to connect with a broad swath of people. And while there can be success with, say, a polarizing design, mass-market brands generally try to avoid alienating large chunks of their potential customer base. I've cited here before the story about Michael Jordan saying he didn't speak out on politics because 'Republicans buy sneakers, too.' In retrospect, he said it was just a funny line among friends. But the thing is that he wasn't wrong, and every business school graduate knows it. Musk, however, is not your typical MBA type. So out of his frustration with former President Joe Biden — who habitually sided with the UAW and its automakers against the U.S.-based global leader in EVs, even as he advocated for a carbon-neutral future — Musk threw an estimated quarter of a billion dollars behind the Trump campaign. That's an unbelievable sum of money to many of us, but when Trump won, it looked like the greatest bet ever. From late October to late December, Tesla stock more than doubled and its market cap approached $1.5 trillion. While Musk's political activism may have upset many of his loyal, environmentally motivated customers, there were a lot of reasons to be bullish on Tesla under Trump. It seemed likely that NHTSA and the SEC would take a more sympathetic view of the company's issues. Beyond that, Musk has refocused the company's future on artificial intelligence, humanoid robots and robotaxis. (Tesla said it plans to launch its service in Austin, Texas, on June 22.) A new administration with a deregulatory inclination toward self-driving cars was a significant tailwind. Now, those advantages for Tesla are gone or at least seemingly diminished. Structures that have legacy automakers paying to buy Tesla's credits for selling emission-free, fuel-efficient vehicles could be eliminated. (And let's not forget that Trump hinted at ending federal contracts with other Musk-affiliated companies.) Turning back to the auto business: The conventional wisdom is that Musk has now alienated all but the most apolitical consumers. Environmentally minded liberals might like EVs, but Musk's support of Trump (and the far-right Alternative for Deutschland party in Germany) has them seeking out other brands' offerings. There might have been an opportunity to become the preferred electric brand of the president's Make America Great Again movement — especially the tech-forward, high-income types and those motivated by the president's endorsement of the brand on the White House grounds. But after this month's blowup — with longtime Trump adviser Steve Bannon arguing to deport Musk — that notion seemed ever more remote. No fans on the left, no fans on the right. Is Elon out in deep water in an electric boat surrounded by sharks with no friends to bail him out? Maybe not. There is significant animus against Musk on the EV-inclined left, especially in the wake of his DOGE team's deep and sometimes chaotic cuts to government entities and programs. Certainly, protests at auto retail outlets are rare. The damage to stores is not acceptable, but it shows the intensity of the situation. But I still have to wonder how far consumers will follow those kinds of feelings. Michiganders, for instance, often assume that Americans prefer to buy American cars made by American (union) workers. But I've been to America, and most of them don't care. They want the best car for their money, whether it's American, German, Japanese or Korean. Some are clamoring for cheap Chinese cars: If Xi Jinping wants to pay for half of their EV, they ask, why not let him? So maybe they won't care about Elon's politics. Tesla sales are down a little this year, but some of that might be attributable to production hiccups. If the Model Y — the bestselling model in the world last year — provides a great value, they'll probably buy it regardless of what they think of the CEO. And now we get to find out. Have an opinion about this story? Tell us about it and we may publish it in print. Click here to submit a letter to the editor. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump signs resolutions killing California's zero-emissions rules
This story was originally published on Trucking Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Trucking Dive newsletter. President Donald Trump moved to sever California's EPA waivers by signing a series of joint resolutions Thursday, rolling back the Golden State's strict truck and auto emissions policies. The president's signing of joint resolutions under the Congressional Review Act reverses the Biden administration's approval of California's Advanced Clean Trucks rule. That earlier rule called for requiring 75% of Class 8 trucks sold in the state to be zero-emissions vehicles by 2035. Another resolution also prevents the state's low-nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions rule for heavy-duty trucks from being implemented, per a statement by the president. The NOx rule intended to regulate emissions from manufacturers by cutting heavy-duty NOx emissions by 90% and overhaul engine testing procedures. The Trump administration has described his predecessor's environmental policies as overreach and unjustified mandates. Trump said the congressional moves he signed further restrict California from implementing a similar policy in the future. "Under the Congressional Review Act, the EPA cannot approve any future waivers that are 'substantially the same' as those disapproved in the joint resolutions," Trump said in a statement. "Accordingly, the joint resolutions prohibit the EPA from approving future waivers for California that would impose California's policy goals across the entire country and violate fundamental constitutional principles of federalism, ending the electric vehicle mandate for good," the statement said. In response, California Gov. Gavin Newsom declared the federal measures illegal and moved to sue the federal government, seeking to pursue the state's zero-emission vehicle policy. Newsom signed an executive order on Thursday for the state to continue regulation requiring that 100% of sales of new vehicles be zero emission by 2035 for cars, pickup trucks and drayage trucks and by 2045 for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Trucking leaders applauded Trump for the measures. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association said the news was a big win for both men and women behind the wheel. 'Our 150,000 small-business members have been saying it all along—electric trucks just aren't a realistic option right now. They're too expensive, the charging infrastructure isn't there,' OOIDA President Todd Spencer said in an emailed press release to Trucking Dive. Industry advocates, including the American Trucking Associations and the Washington Trucking Associations, also warned that electric truck technology and charging infrastructure were not caught up to accommodate California's ambitious EV policies. 'We've done our part to reduce carbon emissions while keeping America's economy moving,' ATA President and CEO Chris Spear said in a press release. 'But what we need is federal leadership to set realistic and achievable national emissions standards. And today brings us one step closer toward that goal,' he added. Werner Enterprises truck driver Gina Jones shared a similar sentiment, speaking as part of the signing ceremony at the White House. 'We cannot allow one state's regulations to disrupt our entire nation's supply chain,' Jones said. 'Allowing California to do so would have [negatively] impacted the hundreds of thousands of truck drivers who deliver critical goods across the country each and every day.' Recommended Reading Congress revokes Advanced Clean Trucks waiver, creating ambiguity for refuse fleets Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's Africa strategy may become a double-edged sword
With US President Donald Trump on a cost-cutting warpath since starting his second term, aid to Africa has been slashed and now defence spending is in his sights - but could these approaches cost more in the long run? The phrase his administration presses on Europe to assume more of the costs of its own defence is "burden sharing". This is the challenge that Washington is now throwing down to African armies too - and they are far less comfortably resourced to take it on. Moreover, having paid dearly in lives and money, in the struggle to hold back the spreading reach of jihadist armed groups across the Sahel, the Lake Chad basin and Somalia over recent years, they could be forgiven for feeling that they already carry much of the burden - and for the sake not just of their own continent but the wider international community too. Benin, which has lost more than 80 soldiers in jihadist attacks since the start of the year, is just one example. "The epicentre of terrorism on the globe" is how the Sahel was described a few days ago by Gen Michael Langley, who as head of US Africa Command (Africom) oversees the American military presence south of the Sahara. In briefings and interviews over the past few weeks, he has graphically outlined the threat that jihadist groups will present if their push southward towards the Gulf of Guinea succeeds. "One of the terrorists' new objectives is gaining access to West African coasts. If they secure access to the coastline, they can finance their operations through smuggling, human trafficking and arms trading. This not only puts African nations at risk but also raises the chance of threats reaching US shores." Gen Langley has admitted that the current upsurge in militant attacks is "deeply concerning". Yet he has also repeatedly hammered home a core message: the US is minded to rein back its own sub-Saharan military operations, leaving local armies to take on more of the defence burden. Some 6,500 personnel are currently deployed in Africa by the US military and a 2019 list published by Africom mentioned 13 "enduring" American bases across the continent and a further 17 more temporary facilities. But some of these installations, including the purpose-built drone base at Agadez in Niger, have already been shut down, in particular after military juntas seized power in Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso since 2020. And it now looks as if the once-ambitious American operational footprint will be pruned back quite a lot more. Perhaps we will see more air power deployed from offshore to hit militant targets - Gen Langley says there have been 25 strikes in Somalia this year, double the 2024 total - but a much thinner permanent on-the-ground military presence. "Some things that we used to do, we may not do anymore," he recently told a conference in Kenya's capital, Nairobi, that brought together chiefs of defence staff and other senior officers from 37 countries. "Our aim is not to serve as a permanent crutch, but to achieve US security objectives that overlap with our partners. We should be able to help African nations build the self-reliance they need to independently confront terrorism and insurgencies." In the bluntness of his language Gen Langley reflects the stark change of outlook and policy that has come from January's change of power at the White House. "We have set our priorities now - protecting the homeland." What matters to the no-longer-so-new Trump II administration, the general made clear in a Pentagon publication last week, is fighting terrorists - particularly those who might attack the US. Other priorities are countering the spread of Chinese military influence across Africa and protecting freedom of maritime navigation through key trade choke points such as the Strait of Gibraltar and the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal and the Bab el-Mandab Strait at the southern end of the Red Sea. In some respects, the focus on training and capacity building that Gen Langley now expounds is not so very different from the approach of previous American administrations, Republican as well as Democrat. He lauds the National Guard State Partnership Program, through which individual US states have been helping to build the capacity of government security forces across Africa and other parts of the world - for the past three decades. France too is pursuing this approach, with the closure of bases in Chad and Senegal, while those in Ivory Coast and Gabon have been handed over to their governments, with only small French training teams left behind to work alongside African colleagues. However, in other respects, the Trump administration's Africa strategy represents a drastic shrinkage in outlook and - critics might argue - a conscious retreat from addressing the factors that drive instability, conflict and terrorism, particularly in the Sahel, which is among the poorest regions on the planet. For under President Joe Biden the US looked far beyond the military realm alone in its efforts to counter the both the growing reach of jihadist groups and other sources of violence. And Gen Langley, as Africom chief, was an articulate exponent of this much broader thinking. Only last year, in an interview with the Associated Press news agency, he outlined what he described as a "whole of government" response to the proliferation of conflict, stressing the importance of good governance and action to tackle the fragilities of African states and the impacts of desertification, crop failure and environmental change. This approach openly recognised that recruitment by armed groups and the spread of violence is fuelled not only by jihadist ideology, but also by a host of social and economic factors, including the stresses now afflicting farming and pastoralist livelihoods. Gen Langley himself does not seem to have abandoned this analysis, recently noting how Ivory Coast had countered the jihadist threat to its northern border areas by complementing security force deployments with development projects. He could equally have pointed to the success of a similar approach pursued by the president of Niger, Mohamed Bazoum, before he was deposed in the July 2023 coup. But of course, these days Africom must operate within the context of a US foreign policy radically reshaped under Trump. There are even rumours that it could be downgraded to become a subsidiary of the US command in Europe and Gen Langley suggests African governments should tell Washington what they thought of this idea. Already the separate Africa unit at the radically slimmed down National Security Council at the White House is reportedly being wound up and integrated into the Middle East-North Africa section. Its director, Gen Jami Shawley, an Africa specialist appointed to the role only in March, has now been assigned to more general strategic functions. Addressing Congress this week, Gen Langley warned about China's and Russia's African ambitions: Beijing's agility at capitalising on the US's absence and Moscow's ability to seize military opportunities created by chaos and instability. Given these concerns, some might wonder if the general is discreetly signally his doubts about a slimmed down Africa strategy. Meanwhile, under the "efficiency drive" led, until recently, by tech billionaire Elon Musk, the American government's main international development agencies, USAID and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, have been effectively shut down. The spine of the new US economic engagement with Africa is now private sector trade and investment. But business generally needs to operate in a stable and secure context - which Africa's most fragile and violence-prone regions cannot offer. And in winding up the American development agencies, the Trump administration has stepped aside from funding the rural projects and social programmes that sought to address land and water pressures and lack of economic opportunity, the key drivers of conflict - and the jihadist groups' recruitment of frustrated rural young people. For the fragile regions that are the main sources of jihadist violence the US response is reduced to the purely military, and now it is seeking to shift even most of that on to the shoulders of African states that already struggle to respond adequately to a plethora of challenges and responsibilities. Paul Melly is a consulting fellow with the Africa Programme at Chatham House in London. The region with more 'terror deaths' than rest of world combined Freed captive tells BBC of life in West African jihadist base Why Trump is on the warpath in Somalia 'My wife fears sex, I fear death' - impacts of the USAID freeze Trump's tariffs could be death knell for US-Africa trade pact Go to for more news from the African continent. Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica Focus on Africa This Is Africa
