
Israel And Yemen's Houthis Threaten To Blockade Each Other's Ports
Israel attacked the major Houthi-controlled Yemeni port of Hodeidah using its naval forces for the first time on Tuesday. The Israeli defense minister warned the Houthis that it will impose a 'naval and air blockade' if it doesn't cease targeting Israel with ballistic missiles and drones. Katz's threat follows similar threats by the Yemen-based group to blockade Israeli ports. However, given the vast distances and logistical resources required to impose such blockades, are these mere empty threats?
'We warned the Houthi terror organization that if they continue to fire at Israel they will face a powerful response and enter a naval and air blockade,' warned Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz on Tuesday. Katz also declared that Israel's 'long arm in the air and at sea will reach everywhere.'
Israeli missile boats hit the Red Sea Yemeni port on Tuesday morning using missile boats. Hodeidah is at least 1,180 miles from Israel's southernmost port of Eilat, also on the Red Sea. Before Tuesday's unprecedented attack, Israel invariably retaliated to Houthi attacks using fighter jets to carry out long-range strikes targeting Hodeidah, Sanaa International Airport, and other ports and economic-related targets controlled by the Houthis.
The use of the warships for such a long-distance raid was notable and may signal Israel's willingness to use different tactics against the group.
Katz's mention of a naval blockade comes less than a month after the Houthis declared a 'maritime blockade' on Israel's Haifa port on the Eastern Mediterranean, warning all companies and ships that the port is on its target list.
'The Houthis lack the capability to conduct a blockade. They can only threaten episodic attacks on shipping in the hopes that it will deter shipping companies from traveling to Israel,' Bryan Clark, a naval expert at the Hudson Institute think tank, told me.
Mohammed Al-Basha, a Middle East security analyst at the Basha Report Risk Advisory, similarly believes that the likelihood of the Houthis successfully blockading Haifa's port remains low.
'Haifa receives its maritime traffic from the Mediterranean Sea and not the Red Sea, unlike Eilat Port (in southern Israel), which has already experienced near-closure due to repeated Houthi attacks,' Al-Basha told me.
'The Houthis do not currently possess the range or naval power to seriously affect Mediterranean shipping routes.'
On the other hand, Israel's capability to enforce a blockade against Hodeidah and other Houthi-controlled ports is markedly greater.
The most advanced warship in the Israeli Navy's surface fleet is undoubtedly its Sa'ar 6 corvette, which Al-Basha described as the 'central element' of Israel's expanding Red Sea presence.
'Earlier this week, the Sa'ar 6 reportedly launched only two missiles to strike berths at Hodeidah Port,' he said. 'Despite this limited action, the ship is capable of remaining at sea for more than a month, providing sustained offensive and defensive capabilities against Houthi targets as operations continue.'
Outfitted with long-range precision-guided missiles such as the Gabriel V sea-skimming anti-ship missile and Delilah GL cruise missile, the Sa'ar 6 can engage targets from up to 186 mile off Yemen's coast.
The small vessels also feature advanced defensive systems, including Barak 8 surface-to-air missiles and the naval version of Israel's well-known Iron Dome, the C-Dome. The corvettes can each carry an MH-60 Seahawk helicopter that can fire AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles.
During previous clashes with the Houthis, U.S. Navy destroyer often defended themselves and commercial shipping using expensive SM-3 and SM-6 air defense missiles to intercept Houthi ballistic missiles and drones. The U.S. has since ceased operations against the Houthis after reaching a ceasefire in early May, which did not stipulate that the Houthis must cease targeting Israel. Consequently, Israel has been going it alone against the group ever since with long-range airstrikes and now seaborne attacks.
'I think the threat to Israeli ships is about the same as that posed to U.S. destroyers, although the Israeli missile boats have less air defense capacity,' Clark said.
However, the smaller Israeli missile corvettes have some advantages over their much bulkier counterparts serving in the all-mighty U.S. Navy.
'Beyond tactical missions, the deployment of the Sa'ar 6 serves as a strategic signal of Israel's intent to expand their projection of power in the Red Sea,' Al-Basha said.
'Unlike a U.S. carrier strike group, which is slower and logistically complex, the Sa'ar 6 offers speed and maneuverability, making it a more elusive and survivable platform against asymmetric threats like those posed by the Houthis.'
Despite such advantages, Israel would undoubtedly find imposing even a limited blockade on Yemen significantly challenging.
'There is growing speculation that Israel may also deploy the ship to intercept suspected Iranian weapons shipments destined for the Houthis,' Al-Basha said. 'Israeli military leadership has hinted at the possibility of imposing a limited maritime blockade on Houthi-controlled ports.'
'However, enforcing a full naval blockade would be challenging due to the limited operational range of Israel's air force and navy, the high logistical and financial costs involved, and the significant threat posed by the Houthis' array of anti-ship capabilities.'
Al-Basha anticipates that Israeli commandos may board vessels Israel suspects of smuggling arms to the Houthis, which would align with Israel's broader strategy of disrupting Houthi supply lines without having to commit to a full blockade.
The Hudson Institute's Clark similarly believes that the Israeli Navy could 'sustain a force' at Yemeni ports to stop traffic and inspect vessels it suspects of arms smuggling.
'However, it would likely take most of Israel's naval forces to do it,' he said.
Aside from its Sa'ar-class corvettes on the surface, the Israeli Navy also has a fleet of German-built Dolphin-class diesel-electric submarines armed with torpedos and cruise missiles.
'Submarines could be used to attack shipping, but it is difficult for a submarine to determine if a ship is carrying humanitarian aid or weapons,' Clark said. 'Therefore, subs are unlikely to be used to be used as part of a blockade,'
Undoubtedly, Israel is much more capable of imposing a blockade on Yemeni ports than vice-versa. Nevertheless, the Houthis can credibly threaten Israel in other ways and may ultimately prove capable of harming Haifa's port.
'Looking ahead, the Houthis may attempt to escalate their campaign using advanced missile technology,' Al-Basha said. 'There are credible reports that they could deploy multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles or MIRVs on their Palestine 2 and Zulfiqar medium-range ballistic missiles.'
'A successful strike on Haifa's port infrastructure or a vessel docked in port could temporarily disrupt shipping operations and increase pressure on Israeli logistics.'
The Houthis have fired repeatedly at Israel's main airport, Ben Gurion International. While they have so far failed to directly hit the airport, a Houthi ballistic missile evaded Israeli Arrow and American THAAD air defenses hit the perimeter of the main terminal on May 4. Israel responded by heavily bombing Sanaa airport and Hodeidah.
Al-Basha noted there are fears that a 'single successful strike' by the Houthis on Ben Gurion or other critical Israeli infrastructure could 'change the strategic balance' in the group's favor. He noted the Houthis have 'already demonstrated determination and persistence' in targeting Israeli infrastructure. Furthermore, while Houthi threats to impose an aerial blockade over Tel Aviv were largely dismissed before May 4, that's certainly no longer the case.
'In May, about a quarter of international airlines canceled their flights to and from Ben Gurion due to the security risks,' Al-Basha said. 'That number may increase, especially after video footage showed a missile interception occurring dangerously close to a departing commercial airliner.'
'The conflict is entering a more volatile and unpredictable phase, and both Israel and the Houthis appear ready to escalate further if provoked.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Almost 6 in 10 say UN members should recognize Palestinian state: Survey
Nearly 6 in 10 Americans said that the United Nations (U.N.) countries should recognize the Palestinian state, according to a new survey that was published on Wednesday morning. The new Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 58 percent of U.S. adults think that every country in the U.N. should recognize Palestine as a nation. About a third of respondents, 33 percent, disagreed, while another 9 percent didn't answer when asked. The survey comes as the United Kingdom, France and Canada — all close U.S. allies — have recently expressed their intentions to recognize the Palestinian state. In late July, when asked about UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's intention, President Trump said he had 'no view on that.' The president said French President Emmanuel Macron's decision was not 'going to change anything.' The decisions from all three nations come as Israel is facing international pressure over the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, with starvation spreading and some aid organizations warning that Palestinians are on the brink of famine. Israel has denied the accusation of facilitating the growing hunger in the war-torn enclave, stating that the Palestinian militant group Hamas is stealing humanitarian aid. Hamas, designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S., has denied the accusation by Israel. The majority of Americans in the survey, 65 percent, said that the Trump administration should spring into action to aid Palestinians when it comes to food delivery. About 28 percent disagreed, including 41 percent of Trump-aligned GOP voters. Nearly 6 in 10 Americans, 59 percent, argued that the Israeli military's actions in Gaza, which kicked off following Hamas's Oct. 7, 2023, attack on southern Israel, have been excessive. About a third, 33 percent, disagreed, according to the poll. In February last year, 53 percent of Americans said Israeli military response in the enclave was excessive, while 42 percent said otherwise. The survey was conducted from Aug. 13-18 among 4,446 U.S. adults. The margin of error was around 2 percentage points.


San Francisco Chronicle
23 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The Latest: Texas GOP poised to approve map gerrymandered for their advantage
The first domino in a growing national redistricting battle is likely to fall Wednesday as the Republican-controlled Texas legislature is expected to pass a new congressional map creating five new winnable seats for the GOP. The vote follows prodding by President Donald Trump to stave off a midterm defeat that would deprive his party of control of the House of Representatives. Democrats who refused round-the-clock police escorts to ensure they'd provide a quorum were confined to the House floor, where they protested on a livestream. They've vowed a blue-states payback for the Texas map, with California's legislature poised to approve a retaliatory gerrymandering for the state's voters to consider in November. Evacuating for a hurricane could expose immigrants to deportation Natural disasters have long posed singular risks for people without permanent legal status. But with the arrival of peak Atlantic hurricane season, immigrants and their advocates say Trump's militaristic immigration enforcement agenda has increased the danger. Places considered neutral spaces by immigrants such as schools, hospitals and emergency management agencies are now suspect, and many local first responders now collaborate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. For people without legal documents, this can mean having to choose between physical safety and avoiding detention. The fear can extend into disaster recovery as agencies share information with deportation agents. In past disasters, the Department of Homeland Security said it would suspend immigration enforcement, but that's now unclear. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said CBP hasn't issued guidance 'because there have been no natural disasters affecting border enforcement.' Hundreds of federal health employees sign a letter protesting Kennedy's actions The employees at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other federal agencies have signed a letter charging that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has endangered their lives and the rest of the public. The two-page letter sent to Kennedy and members of Congress cites his anti-science rhetoric, denigration of federal workers, layoffs affecting public health programs and Kennedy's decision to replace members of a vaccine advisory panel with a handpicked group that includes some anti-vaccine advocates. It faults Kennedy's delayed response to an Aug. 8 shooting at the CDC's main campus in Atlanta. And it asks Kennedy to stop spreading false health information, affirm the CDC's scientific integrity, and guarantee the safety of the HHS workforce. About 400 current employees signed their names, most of them from the CDC but some from the National Institutes of Health and other health agencies. Also signing the document are some noted former CDC leaders, including former acting director Dr. Anne Schuchat.


Newsweek
25 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump's Tariffs Shock India, With New Delhi Weighing Its Options
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. A decades-long partnership between the United States and India has come under sudden strain, as President Donald Trump's new wave of tariffs on Indian exports left officials in New Delhi caught off guard and scrambling for answers. Trump's decision to impose a 25 percent duty on Indian goods earlier this month—with plans to double it to 50 percent next week over India's continued purchases of Russian oil—landed with little warning and no clear path forward. It marked a stunning public rupture between two countries that have for years portrayed themselves as close strategic partners in the Indo-Pacific and beyond. "This is the worst downturn since 2013 or 2014," Shajak Sengupta, a senior research associate at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy, told Newsweek. "What makes it more serious is how public and high-level the criticism has been. This didn't come through backchannels—it came straight from the president." Sengupta cited multiple tensions behind the rift beyond Russian oil, including India's rejection of Trump's claims to have mediated a cease-fire with Pakistan, stalled trade talks on agriculture, and a broader desire to pressure Moscow. US President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi hold a joint press conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on February 13, 2025. US President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi hold a joint press conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on February 13, 2025. Photo by Jim WATSON / AFP) (Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images "But when all of those issues get bundled into tariffs, with no signaling beforehand, that's when it becomes a structural problem," he said. Modi's Bet on Trump Falters Just months before the tariff shock, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi stood shoulder to shoulder with President Trump in Washington, declaring a new phase in the U.S.-India strategic relationship. "We're going to open up India like never before," Trump said during a joint press appearance at the White House, where he announced a target of expanding bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030. Modi, in turn, called the U.S. "India's most trusted partner" and said he expected the "big deal" to be finalized "within months." "In the language of America, it's 'Make India Great Again' — MIGA," Modi said as Trump smiled along. "When America and India work together, this MAGA plus MIGA becomes a 'mega partnership for prosperity." Their February meeting was cast as a breakthrough moment: both leaders praised each other's vision, committed to deepening defense and economic cooperation, and previewed a bilateral trade agreement that was, by all public accounts, nearing completion. WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 13: U.S. President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meet in the Oval Office at the White House on February 13, 2025 in Washington, DC. WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 13: U.S. President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meet in the Oval Office at the White House on February 13, 2025 in Washington, optimism has since collapsed under the weight of Trump's August tariff orders, with the South Asian giant facing a penalty higher than that imposed on China, long cast as America's chief economic rival. "It's a lesson in the limits of chemistry," said Chietigj Bajpaee, senior research fellow for South Asia in the Asia-Pacific Programme at Chatham House. That breakdown in personal diplomacy has quickly translated into real economic costs. The new tariffs, now among the steepest levied by the U.S. on any trading partner, strike directly at sectors central to India's export economy such as textiles and leather goods, which together accounted for $18.3 billion of exports to the U.S. in 2024. "With Trump, everything is leverage," Bajpaee said. "What seemed like alignment in February turned out to be a setup for pressure in August." Trade Fallout Spills Into Strategy What began as a trade dispute has quickly widened into a broader geopolitical reckoning. Indian officials are said to be furious at what they view as scapegoating by Washington. "It is extremely unfortunate that the U.S. should choose to impose additional tariffs on India for actions that several other countries are also taking in their own national interest," the Indian Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement. "We reiterate that these actions are unfair, unjustified and unreasonable." The fallout comes at a time of renewed alignment among BRICS nations—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—all of whom are facing pressure from Washington on various fronts. Modi is expected to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin later this year, following a planned BRICS summit in China that Modi will attend. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, left, Russian President Vladimir Putin, center, and Chinese President Xi Jinping, right, at a BRICS summit, on October 23, 2024, in Kazan, Russia. Russia hopes to revive a three-way bloc... Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, left, Russian President Vladimir Putin, center, and Chinese President Xi Jinping, right, at a BRICS summit, on October 23, 2024, in Kazan, Russia. Russia hopes to revive a three-way bloc with India and China."This has renewed the convergence of interests between India, Russia and China," Bajpaee said. "But India still seeks to project a benign worldview—non-Western, but not anti-Western. And the long-term rationale for working with the U.S. hasn't changed." Inside the White House, however, officials have sharpened their tone. "India portrays itself as being one of our closest friends in the world, but they don't accept our products. They impose massive tariffs on us," said Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff, in a Fox News interview. "They're taking advantage of us on trade and underwriting Putin's war effort." Stephen Miller: "India portrays itself as being one of our closest friends in the world; but they don't accept our products, they impose massive tariffs on us, we also know they engage in a lot of cheating on immigration policy." — captive dreamer (@avaricum777) August 4, 2025 Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent added fuel to that fire on CNBC Tuesday, accusing New Delhi of "profiteering" from the war by purchasing Russian oil at a steep discount, refining it, and selling it back on the open market while pocketing the profit. "This opportunistic arbitrage is unacceptable," the former hedge-fund manager said. The strategic cost of the rift could be significant. "India shares America's view that China poses the world's most significant strategic threat," Richard Rossow, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Newsweek. "A strong trade agreement would accelerate this growing partnership and bolster military cooperation—both bilaterally and through forums like the Quad," an informal diplomatic working group made up of Australia, India, Japan, and the United States and designed to counter China's influence in the Indo-Pacific. Alyssa Ayres, a former senior State Department official and now a professor at George Washington University, told Newsweek the downturn signals a shift in the president's focus during his second term. "In Trump's first term, he emphasized India's market access issues, but also worked to deepen the broader relationship," she said. "Now it looks like trade concerns are crowding everything else out." What Comes Next? Despite the tensions, both sides have reason to tread carefully. India remains the United States' ninth‑largest trading partner, while the U.S. is India's top export destination, importing over $86 billion in goods last year. "India is one of our ten largest goods‑trading partners and a key supplier of offshore IT‑enabled services," said Rossow. "And to India, the U.S. is easily the most significant economic partner—the largest destination for its goods and services exports, and the largest source of inbound foreign investment." Calls for diplomacy have grown louder. "The U.S. and Indian governments need to talk to each other in private and resolve their differences," Ambassador Atul Keshap, president of the U.S.–India Business Council, told Newsweek. "Washington and Delhi have proven they can have difficult conversations that address problems and keep 25 years of partnership on track. Business needs predictability and clear signals of continued technology and supply chain collaboration. Substantial investments in both directions create jobs and shared prosperity in both America and India—and are worth sustaining." Sengupta warned the standoff may already be taking a toll, with tariffs and uncertainty already slowing investment and economic activity in both countries. Indian firms have invested more than $40 billion in the U.S., supporting nearly 425,000 American jobs—a sharp increase from $22 billion and 125,000 jobs in 2020, according to industry data. "If ties continue to sour, you could see a plateauing or even decline in trade and investment—the kind of flows needed not just to fuel India's development, but also the U.S. strategy to reduce dependence on China." Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley reinforced the warning in a Newsweek opinion column published Wednesday, urging the administration not to lose sight of the larger picture. "Scuttling 25 years of momentum with the only country that can serve as a counterweight to Chinese dominance in Asia would be a strategic disaster," she wrote. Haley called for direct talks between Trump and Modi and said India should be treated "like the prized free and democratic partner that it is—not an adversary like China."