Israeli jets bomb Yemen capital, ‘destroying Houthi airport'
Israeli jets bombed Yemen's rebel-held capital Sanaa on Tuesday, 'fully disabling the airport', in the latest retaliation for a Houthi missile that landed near Tel Aviv's main airport.
'Flight runways, aircraft and infrastructure at the airport were struck,' the Israel Defence Forces said, adding that 'the airport served as a central hub for the Houthi terrorist regime to transfer weapons and operatives'.
The two days of strikes were in response to the Iran-backed group's repeated missile and drone attacks on Israel, including a missile that landed close to Ben Gurion airport on Sunday, the IDF added.
The Israeli military said the airport had been a central hub for the Houthi terrorist regime to transfer weapons and operatives.
Israel Katz, the country's defence minister, warned that Iran would also face consequences. 'It is also a warning to the Iranian head of the octopus,' he said on Tuesday. 'You bear direct responsibility for any attack by the Houthi tentacle against the state of Israel, and you will also bear the full consequences.'
In turn, Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a member of the Houthi political bureau, told the pro-Iran Al-Mayadeen broadcaster that the movement would hit back. 'Our military operation in support of Gaza will continue and will not stop,' he said. 'Wait for the Yemeni response.'
Residents had been warned to evacuate the area around Sanaa airport before a large explosion was filmed, visible from across the city. Airstrikes are said to have crippled the main Houthi sea port of Hodeidah on Monday.
Houthi media said 15 people were injured in the airport attack. Britain, which had recently joined the US in a fresh campaign of airstrikes against the rebel group, said it had not been involved, according to Sky News.
'The US will continue to lead the strikes, but there had to be a retaliation for yesterday,' an Israeli official told The Times on Monday, referring to Sunday's ballistic missile attack near Tel Aviv, which injured four people and forced the temporary closure of Ben Gurion airport.
The attack on Hodeidah port was said to be 'devastating… in terms of taking the port completely out of action', the official said.
• Mark Urban: the Houthis have the upper hand. This is why
The latest strikes may have left the rebels cut off, with no supply line to their Iranian sponsors by sea or air. Hodeidah receives ships directly from Iran, much like the port of Ras Isa, which the US targeted last month.
Last week Pete Hegseth, the US secretary of defence, accused Iran of supporting the Houthis and said the US would retaliate as part of a campaign of strikes first started last year after the rebels disrupted Red Sea shipping lanes with attacks in support of Hamas in Gaza. Trump has promised to 'annihilate the Houthis' and US operations against the Yemeni group have cost more than $7 billion over the past 15 months.
On Sunday, Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, said the retaliation for the attack on Ben Gurion would not 'happen in one bang, but there will be many bangs'.
The Houthis said in a statement they used a 'hypersonic ballistic missile'. Yahya Saree, the Houthi military spokesman, said Israel's main airport was 'no longer safe for air travel'.
British Airways announced on Sunday that it was suspending all flights to and from Tel Aviv until May 7. 'We continually monitor operating conditions and have made the decision to suspend all our flights,' it said.
The attack by the Houthis will raise questions about the effectiveness of the US and British aerial campaign, which started on March 15. Unlike previous airstrikes conducted under Joe Biden's administration, the new allied campaign, named Rough Riders, has targeted Houthi commanders and more of the group's infrastructure, but the attacks by the Houthis have persisted.
Last week a missile attack on a US carrier in the Red Sea forced the ship to make a hard turn as a F/A-18 combat jet was being towed on deck, causing the $70 million aircraft to fall over the side.
Iran has refused to discuss its support for the Houthis and other militias in the region in its negotiations with the US on curbing its nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The world is safer without a nuclear-armed Iran
During his first term as president in 2019, Donald Trump pulled back from ordering an attack on Iran even as US warships locked missiles on to their targets and bombers were in the air. The American military was 'cocked and loaded' only to be stood down with just 10 minutes to spare. The abandonment of a major operation at such a late stage was seen as emblematic of the president's deep reluctance to involve his country in another conflict in the Middle East, and what he called the region's 'forever wars'. Yet on Saturday night his reticence evaporated. He sent US stealth aircraft armed with so-called 'bunker buster' bombs to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons programme once and for all. Mr Trump declared the operation a great success, though it will be several days before it is known whether the three sites have been 'obliterated', as the president has claimed. The whole episode has been a classic Trump performance. First he issued the threat to back up Israel's assault on the Iranian nuclear weapons plants, only then appearing to retreat once more by indicating nothing would happen for a fortnight. Whether it was brought forward in order to catch the Iranian regime off guard is not clear. It is more likely that the intelligence reports of the Iranians moving their enriched uranium away from the plants expedited the mission. Dozens of lorries were seen at the Fordow site, which is buried deep in a mountain, probably removing enriched material to another location. The president may have feared that waiting another week or so risked leaving him in the same position as George W Bush, who invaded Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein's arms programme only to find the weapons of mass destruction had gone or were never present. Mr Trump was critical of that decision and his America First doctrine gave the impression he would keep the US out of any foreign conflict unless directly threatened. But he has discovered, as have past presidents all the way back to Woodrow Wilson, that things are not that simple and isolationism is very hard to sustain. As the most powerful defender of democratic values against despotisms, the US cannot, and should not, just depart the scene. The geopolitical ramifications of these strikes on Iran are profound. Mr Trump may perhaps now care to reflect on his ambivalence towards Russia's invasion of Ukraine, where similar criteria apply, of an autocracy threatening the existence of another country. Will he now be more critical of Vladimir Putin and more supportive of Nato, which is holding its annual summit in the Hague this week with an across-the-board promise to increase defence spending dramatically? If Iran has moved its enriched material, is Mr Trump prepared to order further strikes or will it be left to Israel to follow up? The president might well hope the strikes have indeed obliterated the sites and no more US help is required; but once involved in a war, it can be hard for a country to extricate itself easily from it. There is also the threat from Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz through which almost a quarter of the world's oil and gas is shipped. However, this may not be possible for Tehran, both because of the presence of a US carrier group, but also because China relies heavily on energy supplies coming through the Gulf. A blockade would be calamitous for the Chinese economy and for India's. Tehran will be keen to get both these countries into their camp in a stand-off with America. Furthermore, there is a very real risk of terrorist attacks on US assets, which include shipping and some 40,000 troops in the region. Iran will hope its proxies Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis will step up their activities against Israel, but their ability to do so has been severely degraded. It will also seek to sponsor violent action abroad. Here in the UK we have already seen how the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has targeted émigré Iranian dissidents and engaged in spying and cyber warfare. It is possible that the damage inflicted on Iran and the assassination of some key military figures will hasten the demise of the theocratic rulers and the removal of the zealots who have caused so much trouble in the region and the world for so long. Washington says it is not seeking regime change and the idea that it would be replaced by a benign, Western-style democracy of the sort never seen in Iran is fanciful. More likely is that the IRGC would take over in a military coup with unknown consequences. There are many uncertainties, but one thing is clear. Despite the calls from Sir Keir Starmer and others for 'de-escalation', the world is a safer place without a nuclear-armed Iran. As Benjamin Netanyahu put it: the most dangerous regime in the world has been denied access to the most dangerous weapons. The Israeli prime minister, who scored a diplomatic coup by convincing Mr Trump to act, believed it would usher in a period of 'peace and prosperity' for all in the region and beyond. We can but hope, but history is not a happy guide.
Sky News
20 minutes ago
- Sky News
Five reasons why we may not see anything more than rhetoric from Russia after US attacks Iran
On the surface, at least, Moscow is fuming. Russia's foreign ministry said it "strongly condemns" the US airstrikes on Iran, which it labelled a "dangerous escalation". Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia's powerful security council, accused Donald Trump of starting "a new war", and others have called for Moscow to step in. "It's time for us to help Tehran," said Konstantin Malofeyev, a sanctioned Russian businessman who is close to Vladimir Putin. But this was to be expected. Iran has been a vital ally in recent years, selling weapons to Russia for its war in Ukraine, and the two nations signed a strategic partnership deal in January. So a robust verbal riposte was predictable. But the response so far feels more show than substance and if things don't escalate further, I doubt we'll see anything more than rhetoric from Russia. 0:54 There are several reasons why. Firstly, the strategic partnership deal doesn't contain a mutual defence clause. The pact does seek to deepen their defence cooperation, but neither country is obliged to provide military support to the other in the event of an attack. Secondly, if Moscow did want to join the conflict or even supply weapons to Tehran, it would be hard pushed to. Resources are focused on the war in Ukraine. Thirdly, Russia doesn't want to damage its warming relations with the US. Any kind of aid to Iran would likely jeopardise the tentative rapprochement. Fourthly, the Israel-Iran conflict is a helpful distraction from the Kremlin's war against Ukraine. With all eyes on the Middle East, any pressure there was from Washington on Moscow to reach a peace deal seems to have evaporated. Lastly, it's not Vladimir Putin who's spoken out, but the usual attack dogs. 2:02 Dmitry Medvedev, for example, is a senior figure but his fiery rhetoric is generally considered to be part of a Kremlin comms strategy rather than actual policy expression. Having said all that, though, Russia won't want the situation to escalate any further. Its regional influence took a battering when the Assad regime in Syria was toppled in December, and that influence would practically disappear if another Moscow-friendly regime in Iran were to fall. So for now, the Kremlin is frantically trying to find a diplomatic solution. Last week, Vladimir Putin held conversations with the leaders of Israel, Iran, America, China and the UAE, and those efforts continue on Monday when he'll meet Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi in Moscow. If the reports are true - that the US forewarned Tehran of the bombings and signalled they'd be a one-off - there's a good chance Moscow had prior knowledge too. Either way, Vladimir Putin's aim here is to play peacemaker, and to turn the situation to his advantage. If he can persuade Mr Araghchi to limit Iran's response to a symbolic one, and to then return to the negotiating table with America, he will have Donald Trump in his debt. The obvious place he'd want that repaid is Ukraine, in the form of withdrawing US support.
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
US defence secretary claims Trump ‘does not seek war' after Iran strike
The US launched a major attack on three Iranian nuclear sites, dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, with President Trump claiming it "completely obliterated" Iran 's nuclear weapon chances. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth stated the operation aimed solely to end Iran 's nuclear ambitions, insisting the administration "does not seek War" or regime change. The attack, involving stealth bombers and numerous missiles, was reportedly planned for weeks, leading to speculation of "deliberate deception" despite earlier de-escalation assurances at the G7 summit. The UN Secretary-General condemned the US action as a "dangerous escalation," while Iran vowed revenge, with its foreign minister flying to Moscow for talks with Vladimir Putin. The UK and other allies organised repatriation flights amid fears of all-out War, with UK bases on high alert, though the UK Prime Minister supported the US action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
