Does America Have a Plan B?
From day one their top priority has been containing the conflict. What if that fails?
Israel Strikes Back at the Houthis
On Saturday, Israel staged an attack on the Yemeni port of Hodeidah, which is controlled by the Houthi militia known as Ansar Allah. According to the Times of Israel article linked in the first line, dozens of Israeli jets attacked cranes used to unload weapons from Iran. They also struck a fuel depot at the port. The attack on the fuel depot resulted in a spectacular fire which was still burning hours after the attack.
Image: Fire burns at a fuel depot in Yemeni Port of Hodeidah after Israeli attack ———- Source: Times of Israel
This was Israel’s first strike against the Houthi militia since the start of the war, although the Houthis have tried to attack Israel over 200 times since October 7. The IAF demonstrated its ability to cause significant damage to a distant target in a location farther away from Israel than Iran. An oped in the consistently anti-government Israeli news outlet Haaretz, analyzed the strategic implications of Israel’s retaliatory attack. Oped writer Alon Pinkas was broadly supportive:
Was the attack on the oil terminals in the port proportionate to the drone attack on Tel Aviv? No. But why should it be? There is absolutely no logic or benefit in "exercising restraint," especially when facing a violent, rogue, non-state or semi-state actor such as the Houthis. They are heavily supported and usually encouraged by Iran to attack Israel, a country with which they have no border, no claims, no real conflict.
The article then asks whether Israel’s attack changed the strategic situation in any meaningful way. The answer is no.
Since the beginning of the war, the Houthis, who are armed and aligned with Iran have been sending drones and missiles to attack Israel. Many of these have been shot down by United States forces stationed in the Red Sea. Until Friday’s drone attack which killed Yevgeny Ferder in his apartment in Tel Aviv, and wounded several more, nobody in Israel had been harmed by any of the Houthi attacks.
The attacks by the Houthis on shipping passing through the Red Sea have been much more significant in their impact. The Houthis claimed to be targeting Israeli shipments in solidarity with the Palestinians, but many of the ships that have been targeted had nothing to do with Israel.
Image: Map showing the locations of ships attacked by the Houthis. —— Source: BBC
The United States seemed to recognized early on that this threat to global trade, with implications for Europe and freedom of navigation more broadly, is a global issue, and they organized an international force in response to these attacks.
However this show of international force has not been effective. The impact of the Houthi attacks on global shipping over the past nine months has been profound. According to the Haaretz oped, Egyptian revenue from Suez Canal shipping has been reduced by half since the beginning of the war. This means that ships are taking longer and more expensive routes to avoid the relatively low risk of being attacked in the Red Sea, and it means that Egypt, which has had a peace treaty with Israel since 1978, is facing ongoing harm, which the international effort has not prevented.
We must ask, “Why has the powerful American led military deployment to the region failed to stop the harm caused by the Houthis?” The answer is fairly clear. The force in the Red Sea has limited itself to attacks which do nothing meaningful to remove the threat.
Why would the Americans and others go to the trouble and expense of deploying ships to the Red Sea and then not use them to effectively address the problem they went there to solve? The answer is that, since the beginning of the war, while mostly supporting Israel’s right to defend itself, the Biden Administration has decided that their number one strategic objective is to prevent a wider war.
One can wonder if this is driven by America’s best interests or by the electoral calculus of the President’s campaign, but this concern has put limits on what the American military would do, and also led to pressure on Israel to limit what they do in Gaza, in Lebanon and against Iran. Since America is Israel’s main source of weapons imports, Israel has had to comply with the red lines laid out by the United States.
This policy led to an American intervention just after the beginning of the war, to dissuade Israel from attacking Hezbollah first, before starting the ground campaign in Gaza. Israel’s leaders who decided to go after Hezbollah first, presumably reasoned that Hezbollah was the bigger threat, and would wait for Israel to commit ground forces to Gaza before unleashing a devastating attack from the north. At the same time the deployment of an air craft carrier and American warnings to Hezbollah (Biden’s famous “Don’t. Just don’t”), may have persuaded Hezbollah to refrain from launching an all out attack.
In the Red Sea, American responses to Houthi attacks have been limited to striking at the launching points used by Houthi missiles and boats. This has been calculated to avoid escalation, but it has allowed the Houthis to go right on attacking international shipping, giving them and their Iranian sponsors a win.
Similar American thinking seemed to be at work in the Spring, when Iran launched a drone and missile attack on Israel. The Iranians were reacting to the death of Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) General Razi Mousavi, due to an Israeli attack in Syria in April. In response to the the Iranian attack on Israel, the Americans mobilized an air defense coalition, which included many of Israel’s Arab neighbours, to shoot down the missiles and drones that Iran sent against Israel. When that air defense was almost 100% effective, the Americans aggressively pushed Israel not to retaliate. Israel did retaliate, but it was a very measured response which Iran played down. Iran did not launch any further direct attacks on Israel after that.
While we understand what the United States has tried to achieve in the course of the war, we are left wondering what will happen if the strategy ultimately fails. One somewhat cynical assessment is that the policy is driven by electoral politics and the belief that a deeper American involvement in the war, would play to the advantage of the Republicans in November. One implication of this is that once the election is over, the administration might become willing to take a more aggressive stance, against Iran, Hezbollah and the Houthis.
The other more worrying possibility is that the Administration is determined to avoid a wider war at all costs. This leaves open the question of what they will do if their efforts fail. Ultimately, if Iran decides that it wants a wider war against Israel, then Hezbollah can do great harm and force Israel to mobilize the forces that have already fought for months in Gaza and send them into battle again in Lebanon.
Will the United States follow through on its threats against Hezbollah in a case like that? Or will Israel be fighting on its own? Will the Americans eventually take effective measures to end Houthi interference with freedom of navigation in the Red Sea? Or will Iran succeed as an agent of chaos in harming the global economy?
If Iran tries to build a nuclear weapon, will the US intervene to prevent it, as they have always vowed to do? Or will those threats turn out to be hollow, leaving Israel to act alone against the Iranian nuclear program?
As the Democrats scramble to choose a new Presidential candidate in the five weeks between now and their convention, will the President Biden who is now no longer a candidate have more time to focus on the many risks that the war continues to present to the global order? Or will a dangerous power vacuum appear as both Russia and Iran seek to press their advantage?
Welcome to year 2 of Canadian Zionist Forum. All articles continue to be free to read by everyone. If you find value in what we write, we ask you to upgrade to a paid subscription to support our work. Paid subscribers can leave a comment.
Thank you for reading and we look forward to another fruitful year, as we seek to provide greater clarity and honest discussion of issues affecting the Canadian Jewish community and the State of Israel.
Attacking the Houthi is the only course of action. I wonder what kind of anti-Israel press this will cause.
You know the answer. There is nothing but surrender in their hearts. They will never move effectively against Iran or against Russia or against China and the mere threat of a wider war will deter American action so long as Democrats remain in charge. Nor will they ever broadly support the kind of Israeli offensive that could actually change the calculus moving forward. Our enemies have little to fear from a Democratic led US.