Nournews: Recent developments in Yemen have produced consequences that extend far beyond the country’s borders. Yemen’s popular resistance, comprising Ansarullah and the Yemeni army, has seized the port of Mokha and Mayyun Island in the Bab al-Mandab Strait, advanced toward Taiz, defeated Saudi-backed forces, and launched heavy missile and drone attacks in response to Saudi aggression. These developments have once again demonstrated that the balance of power in West Asia is no longer determined solely by the will of external actors.
Against this backdrop, Donald Trump’s claim that the Houthis had contacted him and asked the United States not to intervene appears less a sign of Washington’s peaceful approach than an attempt to manage a narrative that obscures realities on the ground. Yemeni officials have denied the claim, while the broader developments point above all to Washington’s growing constraints—constraints that the Ramadan war, Iran’s resilience, and Yemen’s resistance have made increasingly apparent.
A Defeat That Still Lives in Washington’s Memory
Reports by Western media outlets, including Newsweek, about Trump rejecting a Saudi request for direct US participation in the war against Yemen, alongside reports that some 200 US military advisers were being sent to Riyadh to assist with operational planning, offer a picture of Washington’s two-track policy. On the one hand, the United States does not want to directly re-enter the battlefield; on the other, it is seeking to influence and manage part of its ally’s military operations through advisory support.
This approach cannot simply be interpreted as evidence of a peace-oriented policy. Last year’s experience was costly for Washington. In support of the Israeli regime, the United States deployed naval forces to the Red Sea and carried out extensive airstrikes against Yemen. Yet the Yemeni resistance did not collapse. Instead, its continued resistance imposed heavy costs on the United States, ultimately forcing Trump to unilaterally declare a ceasefire and pledge that the attacks would not be repeated.
From this perspective, Washington’s caution today should be understood in light of the memory of that defeat—a defeat that demonstrated that military superiority does not necessarily translate into the ability to impose political will on a determined and resistant nation.
The Ramadan War: A Cost That Has Weakened the US Military
A more important dimension of the issue is the state of US military capabilities and strategic reserves. In Ireland, Trump sought to project an image of overwhelming American superiority by making claims about advanced and laser weapons. Yet developments during the Ramadan war have painted a different picture of the battlefield.
Reports of a sharp decline in US strategic reserves, remarks by former CIA Director Petraeus about the heavy consumption of defensive capabilities, and statements by CENTCOM commanders about damage to US bases in the region all point to mounting pressure on Washington’s military capacity. Even in the case of certain bases, including those in Bahrain, questions have been raised about the inability to quickly restore them to their previous condition.
At the same time, a number of US generals and military veterans have warned about the country’s ability to enter a prolonged war, as the war with Iran and the war in Ukraine have consumed a significant portion of US weapons and logistical capacity, while rebuilding those capabilities could take years. The condition of the USS Abraham Lincoln can likewise be viewed as only part of a broader picture of strain and exhaustion within the US military structure.
Trump’s reluctance to directly enter the war in Yemen should therefore be viewed in this context: Washington cannot easily wage a prolonged war against both Iran and Yemen simultaneously, particularly when neither front has shown any sign of being ready to surrender.
Washington’s Fear of a Hormuz–Bab al-Mandab Link
The issue is not limited to military capabilities; the US economy could also face the consequences of another war. Trump’s attempts to symbolically rename the straits and project strength may be aimed at managing financial markets and public opinion, but realities on the ground point to a different equation.
The Strait of Hormuz, under Iran’s control, is one of the world economy’s vital chokepoints. Effective control of Bab al-Mandab by Yemen’s resistance could multiply this geopolitical leverage. The linking of the two strategic waterways—Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab—would create simultaneous pressure on global energy and trade routes.
Any major shift in the balance of power around Bab al-Mandab could increase transportation and energy-supply costs, putting upward pressure on oil, gasoline and diesel prices. On the eve of the US congressional midterm elections, this could impose a heavy political cost on the Trump administration and Republicans.
From this perspective, Washington’s decision to avoid direct involvement in the war in Yemen is not a retreat from its policy of power projection, but an attempt to prevent the opening of a front whose military consequences for the United States could be severe and whose economic repercussions for American society could be potentially explosive.
The Alleged Contact: A Curtain to Conceal Reality on the Ground
Against this backdrop, Trump’s claim about contact with the Yemenis, as well as Rubio’s remarks about Iran’s role in Yemen’s recent gains, can be viewed as part of Washington’s effort to manage the media narrative surrounding the developments—an effort aimed at shifting attention away from the strength of the resistance and toward peripheral issues.
The reality is that even without direct US intervention, Yemen’s gains carry a clear message for Washington’s regional allies: the US security umbrella is no longer an absolute guarantee for maintaining the balance of power Washington favors. What is happening in Yemen, on the one hand, exposes the fragility of the US security-building project for allies such as Saudi Arabia and, on the other, demonstrates the failure of efforts to weaken the resistance.
For Trump, who had claimed that he would destroy Iran and its allies, this reality carries a cost far beyond a battlefield setback. Developments in Yemen show that the forces ultimately determining the equations of West Asia are not necessarily Washington and the Israeli regime; the resistance, too, has the capacity to alter the course of events.
Perhaps this is why the United States appears more interested in managing the narrative surrounding the war in Yemen than in directly entering it. Direct intervention could turn past defeats into a living memory—and new defeats into an undeniable reality. In this arena, the aggressors’ short-lived smiles could ultimately come at the cost of a heavy price and long-lasting tears.
Nournews