US warns Iran over support for Houthis, asks UN Security Council for stricter arms embargo
NEW YORK CITY: The US sharply criticized Iran on Thursday over its backing of the Houthis in Yemen, accusing Tehran of violating UN arms embargoes and enabling attacks against Arab nations and Israel.
Speaking during a UN Security Council briefing on the situation in Yemen, the acting US ambassador, Dorothy Shea, said Iranian support is allowing the Houthis to threaten Israel, Gulf countries, and broader regional stability.
'This council must not tolerate Iran's repeated violations of its resolutions,' she told fellow members.
Shea condemned the Houthis for ongoing cross-border attacks, including missile strikes on Israel's Ben Gurion airport, and threats of air and naval blockades targeting Port of Haifa, as well as human rights abuses within Yemen itself.
'Israel has the right to defend itself,' she said. 'We stand with Israel against Iranian-backed terrorist groups, including the Houthis.'
The US envoy also highlighted what she described as evidence that the Houthis were acquiring dual-use technology from Chinese sources, specifically the Chang Guang Satellite Technology Company, which is linked to China's military and Communist Party leadership.
In addition, she called for closer scrutiny of the Houthis' expanding ties to Somalian insurgent group Al-Shabaab, including an investigation by expert UN panels.
Shea highlighted the important role of the UN's Verification and Inspection Mechanism for Yemen as a critical tool for preventing illicit arms shipments to the Houthis, and praised recent interceptions of containers headed for rebel-controlled ports. She urged member states to increase funding for the mechanism and provide naval assets so that it can fully enforce its mandate.
Shea also reiterated that even vessels cleared by the mechanism might still face consequences under US law, given that Washington has designated the Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, and warned that any form of aid to the group could violate US antiterrorism statutes.
The ambassador condemned the Houthis for the prolonged detention of employees of the UN and nongovernmental organizations, and diplomatic personnel, including Americans, for more than a year on 'fabricated espionage charges,' and called for their immediate and unconditional release.
'The Houthis bear overwhelming responsibility for the deterioration in the well-being and safety of the Yemeni people,' Shea added, as she accused the group of terrorizing civilians, obstructing humanitarian aid, and profiting from illicit commercial activities.
The briefing came as UN efforts to address Yemen's protracted conflict and humanitarian crisis continue, with the organization's special envoy to the country, Hans Grundberg, and Assistant Secretary-General Joyce Msuya on Thursday calling on council members to put pressure on the Houthis for a peace agreement and the release of all detainees.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Argaam
39 minutes ago
- Argaam
Crown Prince sends condolences to Iranian President over attack victims
Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman held a phone call today, June 14, with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, during which he extended his condolences over the victims of the Israeli attacks and wished a speedy recovery for the injured. The Crown Prince reaffirmed the Kingdom's rejection of the use of force to resolve conflicts, emphasizing the need to adopt dialogue as the foundation for settling disputes. He reiterated the Kingdom's condemnation of attacks that violate Iran's sovereignty and international law, stressing that such escalation obstructs diplomatic efforts. The Iranian President expressed appreciation for the Kingdom's stance and thanked the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques for facilitating the affairs of Iranian pilgrims until their return home.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
Has the Russia-Ukraine conflict taken a back seat?
Nearly 150 days after returning to the Oval Office, US President Donald Trump is no closer to brokering a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia than he was on Day 1. This was a signature issue of his campaign. He regularly criticized President Joe Biden's handling of the conflict and claimed that had he been in office, the war would never have started. Although foreign policy did not dominate the 2024 election, Trump consistently argued that only he could bring the two sides to the negotiating table and deliver results where others had failed. Upon taking office, however, he quickly discovered that the reality was more complicated. After initially promising he could achieve peace in 24 hours, almost five months later any reference to a timeline has quietly disappeared. The problem of finding a path to peace stems from several overlapping challenges. Firstly, the Trump administration is trying to address too many major foreign policy issues at once. This scattershot approach has diluted focus and prevented a sustained effort on any single objective. In addition to the pursuit of peace in Ukraine, Trump is also renegotiating major trade agreements. The deteriorating US-China relationship, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, consumes a significant share of attention. Meanwhile, the revived nuclear talks with Iran and the Israeli attack on Iran have emerged as another top-tier priority, often bumping other diplomatic efforts — such as Ukraine — down the list. Another major hurdle is the lack of internal coordination within the US government. Disjointed messaging and inconsistent policy execution have plagued the administration's approach. The Department of Defense and intelligence agencies have paused or scaled back various forms of assistance to Ukraine at different points over the past few months. Congressional pressure, especially from those Republicans who remain committed to aiding Ukraine, has helped keep support flowing but uncertainty looms. Most estimates suggest existing funding will run out by late summer. Yet the administration has offered no clear plan for what happens next. Moscow knows this and is stalling to buy time. More troubling is the apparent reluctance to exert serious pressure on Russia. In recent months, most of the diplomatic pressure has been directed at Ukraine, which has complied with nearly every US request since Trump returned to office. This lopsided approach is unsustainable. If the administration is truly committed to peace, then some of the burden must also be placed on Moscow. Perhaps the most damaging dynamic at play is the internal division within the president's own party. The Republican coalition is fractured when it comes to America's role in the world, and those divisions are spilling into the administration's foreign policy. The Republican coalition is fractured when it comes to America's role in the world. Luke Coffey One faction, small but principled, consists of Reagan-style conservatives who believe in strong American leadership abroad. They argue that support for Ukraine advances US national security by weakening one of America's top adversaries. But they are increasingly isolated within a broader conservative movement that is shifting toward skepticism, and in some cases outright hostility, toward international engagement. A second, and more vocal, faction is the isolationist wing. These conservatives view America's involvement in Ukraine as a costly distraction and argue that US interests are not at stake. They want a reduced global footprint and see aid to Ukraine as a waste of taxpayer money. Then there are the so-called 'prioritizers,' who argue that all US resources — strategic, diplomatic and military — should be redirected toward confronting China. They believe that maintaining global commitments in Europe or the Middle East undermines America's ability to face its greatest long-term challenge, in Asia. Finally, there is a fringe, but increasingly vocal, group within the party who believe that Russia should be considered a potential US partner. They argue that Washington should seek detente with Moscow as a way of counterbalancing China. Not only is this dangerously naive, it also ignores Russia's record of aggression and subversion against the West. This internal infighting is not only undermining US policy toward Ukraine, it is also creating uncertainty among other traditional American allies. These partners, who have long relied on steady and predictable US leadership, are increasingly unsure of Washington's commitment. The lack of consensus within the White House is weakening America's global credibility and making it more difficult to rally coalitions in defense of shared interests. So what can Trump do? There is no question that he wants to end the war. Beyond the humanitarian interest, he sees a successful peace deal as a way to define his legacy as the leader who brought peace to Europe when others could not. But good intentions are not enough; if he is serious, he must take concrete steps. Firstly, the White House must work with Congress to pass a strong package of sanctions that could be enacted if Russia refuses to negotiate in good faith. Secondly, there must be a contingency plan to ensure continued military and financial support to Ukraine if current funding expires. To reassure those concerned about the cost, the recently signed critical minerals agreement between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky could help finance continued US aid. Trump must also intensify his diplomatic outreach. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, both of which have played meaningful roles in prior negotiations, could serve as conveners for future talks. The White House should actively coordinate with these actors, and others who can help bring both sides to the table. While the path to peace remains uncertain, the right strategy — one that combines pressure, incentives, and diplomacy — could get peace talks back on track. If Trump can get this right, he will not only bolster his own legacy, he could end a brutal war, bring a just and fair peace to Ukraine, reaffirm American leadership, and help bring lasting peace to the transatlantic region. • Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
The enemy of my enemy could be my enemy as well
Not every proverb that sounds plausible is necessarily universally true, and 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend,' which is thought to originate from an Indian Sanskrit treatise, the Arthasastra, dating back to around the 4th century B.C., is no exception. On more than one occasion in history, the enemy of one's enemy has proved, in fact, to be one's enemy as well. I was reminded of this proverb when I learned that Israeli authorities have been arming a Palestinian militia in Gaza — as if there was not already enough weaponry there to cause horrific bloodshed — as part of their efforts to 'eliminate' Hamas. For more than a year we have repeatedly heard from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel was 'a step away from victory' in this effort. This has proved to be more a case of wishful thinking than reality. Netanyahu has now publicly acknowledged that Israel is arming what it calls a 'clan' that operates in the Rafah area and is led by Yasser Abu Shabab who, according to the European Council on Foreign Affairs, is a gang leader who is widely accused of looting aid trucks, has been jailed by Hamas for drug smuggling, and 'has alleged ties' with Daesh. Not your ordinary guy who you would want to mix with, then. His group consists of anything from 100 to 250 armed men, and is somewhere between a militia and a criminal gang — most probably both. To find an ally in times of conflict is to gain an asset, and to divide and rule is another war tactic known since the dawn of history. But if allies are not selected carefully, the long-term unintended consequences can be worse than the immediate supposed benefits. The Soviet Union was hardly a friend of the West after the Second World War, but the US decision to arm the mujahideen when the Russians invaded Afghanistan came back to haunt Washington, for example. Similarly, Israel's support of Hamas in its early days, as a counter to Fatah, and continuing to do so until the disastrous consequences of this manifested themselves on Oct. 7, 2023, was an act of sheer self-harm. Why they would now repeat that mistake with a similar folly is incomprehensible. Netanyahu did not hide his true intentions when asked about arming Abu Shabab's group. He said: 'We have mobilized clans in Gaza that oppose Hamas. What's wrong with that?' The answer to his question is: Where do we start? Netanyahu's interpretation of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' reveals ignorance and an extreme lack of judgment, possibly signs of desperation, and the air of a colonialist approach. He is confusing the concept of a clan with what is simply a band of criminals, wrongly equating the latter with legitimate local leaders who represent the best interests of their people — alliances that have been a method of maintaining control that occupying forces have employed for centuries. But forging an alliance with legitimate local leaders is very different from being in cahoots with those who for months have been accused by Palestinians and international humanitarian organizations of looting aid lorries and profiting from the misery of their own people. In their inability to achieve the unrealistic goal of eliminating Hamas, Israeli authorities are instead coming up with ideas that are detached from reality. In this case they are looking for allies that appear uninterested in helping to fulfill the national aspirations of the Palestinian people and instead are more interested in enriching themselves, and possibly gaining political power. Netanyahu has now publicly acknowledged that Israel is arming Yasser Abu Shabab, a gang leader who is widely accused of looting aid trucks. Yossi Mekelberg It is obvious why Israel opposes Hamas remaining in control of Gaza. But the organization has said — though the claim has yet to be tested — it is prepared to hand over governance of the territory to any Palestinian organization that is agreed upon nationally and regionally. However, it insists it will not disband, and so a formula is required to ensure the organization does not pose a threat to Israeli security or Palestinian unity. Netanyahu also rejects postwar Palestinian Authority governance of Gaza, having declared this year that 'the day after the war in Gaza, neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority will be there.' This approach raises the suspicion that by supporting armed militias, Israel is deliberately becoming an agent of chaos whose goal is not necessarily to defeat Hamas but to prolong the war indefinitely, thus helping to ensure Netanyahu's government remains in power, at least until next year's general election. In recent weeks, we have seen demonstrations of spontaneous popular opposition to Hamas, despite a brutal crackdown on such dissent by the organization, with hundreds of demonstrators calling for it to be ousted and the war to end. Considering the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza — recently described during an interview with the BBC by International Committee of the Red Cross President Mirjana Spoljaric as 'worse than hell on Earth' — it is only to be expected that ordinary Gazans, who for nearly two years have been enduring such a hellish situation, would vent their anger against both Israel and Hamas. But the engagement by Israel with clans and militias, and even gangs, has nothing to do with trying to alleviate the suffering of the 2.3 million people of Gaza; it is all about creating a force to counter Hamas, and to undermine the Palestinian Authority and also the Palestine Liberation Organization's position as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. While some clans in Gaza were approached last year with the aim of creating an opposition to Hamas, the Abu Shabab gang is not regarded as a clan but calls itself, according to media reports, an 'antiterror service,' with no clear aims or indication of who it serves. If this is truly the case, Israel is creating a monster that will take a long time to contain once it is let loose, as we have seen with similar situations in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. And it will pose a threat, first and foremost, to Israel itself. When countries embark on risky experiments of this kind with nonstate actors, they toy with the idea that they will always be able to control and even disarm them when they have outlived their usefulness. History shows us that in many cases, such groups develop their own sets of interests and revenue streams, not to mention coalitions with like-minded armed groups, sometimes even those they were initially supposed to contain. Meanwhile the country that initially sponsored them tends to lose control of them. Worse still for Israel, since Abu Shabab is depicted on social media in Gaza as 'the Israeli agent' — in other words a traitor, which in the middle of a bitter war is as good as putting a bounty on his head — he has an incentive either to eventually join forces with Hamas, or simply turn on Israel using the weapons it put in his hands. This might be the right time for the Netanyahu government to recognize that there are better ways to undermine extremism and fundamentalism than encouraging civil war. In this case, they begin with ending the killing of innocent civilians, allowing humanitarian aid to reach those that so desperately need it, and then recognizing the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. It would be well worth checking this alternative path in place of the one Israel is on. • Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg
