Iran doesn't care for the Houthis. Mohammed Hamoud/Getty Images
Donald Trump took to Truth Social last week to give Iran a violent warning: “Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN. IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences and those consequences will be dire!” It didn’t sound as if he was pondering another round of sanctions.
A few days later came a shift in tone, as Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, extended an olive branch: “Our signal to Iran is let’s sit down and see if we can, through dialogue, through diplomacy, get to the right place,” he said. “If we can’t, the alternative is not a great alternative.” This followed a letter Trump sent to the Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei on 7 March, which supposedly set a two-month deadline for a new nuclear deal to be signed.
As Iran gets closer and closer to building a bomb, Trump will have to decide whether to avert the coming nuclear crisis using military or diplomatic might. His team is divided. The Signal exchange published this week in The Atlantic, in which high-ranking officials discussed plans for air strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen, revealed a split within the Trump administration over Yemen — and, more importantly though indirectly, over Iran.
In one camp is Vice President JD Vance and the President’s consigliere, Stephen Miller, who together head up the isolationists. Vance has repeatedly expressed strong reservations about Middle Eastern engagements, even those with Israel against Iran, which might lead the United States into conflict. Vance wants the US to do less, and its allies to do more — though not anything that would oblige Washington to intervene militarily. In the other camp is Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, whose more confrontational views on Yemen echo those of the President. Hegseth’s stance reflects the President’s seeming willingness to extend US power into the Middle East to protect Israel vis-à-vis Iran. Though in other areas of foreign policy, Trump’s reluctance to protect traditional allies and avoid “forever wars” is more in line with his Vice President’s sentiments.
Vance’s and Miller’s animosity towards “free-loading” Europeans, as exposed in the leaked messages, reflects a widespread Right-wing allergy towards any dangerous American commitment in the Middle East. These isolationists oppose America bombing Yemen because they think that Suez Canal trade routes, which are continuously harassed by the Iran-allied Houthis, supposedly benefit Europe more than the United States. So why should America be the one to police them?
This aversion to protecting international shipping lanes in the Middle East can be traced back to 2019, when Trump failed to respond militarily to Iranian missile-and-drone and mine attacks on Saudi oil facilities and Gulf shipping. In doing so, he put the so-called Carter Doctrine of 1980— which stipulated that Washington would go to war to protect Persian Gulf oil — on life-support. The decision to sit tight badly damaged US credibility, and might explain Trump’s recent hawkish makeover.
However, one suspects that the Signal debacle was less about shipping lanes, and more about the potential for the Yemen imbroglio to trigger a conflict with Iran. Vance and Miller surely see the Middle Eastern momentum.
The Signal discussion didn’t touch on how the Yemen bombings would affect Washington’s current diplomatic overture to Tehran. Hegseth and the President likely think it can’t hurt: Tehran will see Trump’s Washington as tougher for it, and capable of coercing the Iranians into nuclear negotiations. Meanwhile, Vance may not care: the Vice President doesn’t believe Washington should go to war with Tehran over the nuclear issue, let alone Suez Canal traffic. If he isn’t willing to bomb an Iranian proxy for fear of a slippery slope, then he is surely unlikely to want to bomb its sponsor.
In August 1998, President Bill Clinton fired cruise missiles at al-Qaeda in Khost, Afghanistan, in retaliation to the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. I recall speaking to my old professor, the Anglo-American historian Bernard Lewis, about the barrage. This was his wry assessment: “I was in Khost in 1956. I don’t think it’s changed. Not sure we will be able to see much difference between the before and after shots.”
What was true in Afghanistan then is undoubtedly true in Yemen now: attacking the Houthis, who have always given Tehran a big strategic bang for their buck, isn’t likely to cause significant long-term damage. After all, peasant societies repair infrastructure pretty quickly. Ten years ago, the Saudis and Emirates tried to bomb the Houthis into better behaviour. Despite their overwhelming air power and American targeting assistance, they failed abysmally.
This is partly because Yemen has been at war with itself for decades, and the years of fighting have shredded Yemeni communitarian restraint — the social, political, and economic capital of older men that checks the aggressive passions of younger men. Violence is now the norm in a deeply fractured society. The only military actions against Yemen that might be more effective would entail constant, scorching assaults by US naval and land forces that would turn the littoral into a wasteland — a more destructive version of what British imperial forces did to quiet the Wahhabi-inspired Gulf pirates of the early 19th century. However, even under Trump, Washington is surely unprepared to support such sustained devastation, and to commit manpower and money to it.
Nor are US military actions in Yemen likely to provoke much fear in Tehran. The whole point of Iranian-backed proxies is to absorb pain. The Islamic Republic has been clandestinely nurturing foreign militants since its inception — and for all this time it’s never cared much about allied-Arab casualties.
All this means that American, European, and Israeli reprisals against the Houthis are likely refortifying an old Iranian doctrine: that the Islamic Republic’s enemies are willing to attack the clerical regime’s proxies, but not Iran directly. The Israelis discombobulated this in October 2024, but now it seems to be back in force.
Yet until Iranian supplies are cut off directly, check-mating the Houthis is impossible. The US and allied navies and air forces have so far failed to stop the Houthis harassing shipping. And they are unlikely to do better until the United States is willing to attack Iranian ports — the primary entrepôts for the Houthis — while also hitting Yemeni targets.
Unlike the Houthis, the clerical regime has much to lose in a duel with the United States. By Middle Eastern standards, Iran has a fairly advanced society, cursed with an incompetent government. The Iranian currency, the riyal, now appears to be in free-fall, which, given the history of economic protests in the country morphing into violent political protests, must give the theocracy pause. In this context, US military power is a threat to its capacity to govern. If sustained, US military action against the clerical regime will surely convulse the theocracy at the very least, and disrupt its support to its proxies.
For now, however, Trump still believes that a nuclear deal with Khamenei is possible. And until he abandons this idea, he’ll likely have no more success against the Houthis than his predecessor. The quest for a nuclear deal handicapped Washington’s willingness to counter Tehran in the past. A limited nuclear agreement, which exchanges sanctions relief for some easily reversible diminution of uranium enrichment, would just give Tehran the cash to fortify its proxies again. Trump would become Obama redux.
During the first Trump administration, Tehran essentially stopped the growth of its enriched-uranium stockpile. This time round that doesn’t appear to be happening, and Tehran’s mass of highly enriched, near-bomb-grade uranium is growing larger by the month. Senior officials in the Biden administration more or less operated under the assumption that Iran only had a few technical hurdles left to jump; if provoked, Khamenei could cross the nuclear red line.
But what about Trump? If the President decides to attack the Islamic Republic’s ports and missile factories because of its Yemeni machinations, then hitting the nuclear sites will surely follow. The Trump administration’s intentions on a lot of issues are challenging to assess since the President isn’t captured by consistency and humbled by contradiction. But he does seem to understand that the nuclear issue cannot be separated from the Islamic Republic’s proxy imperialism. They are solved together, or they are lost separately.
Reuel Marc Gerecht is a Resident Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former Iranian-targets officer in the Central Intelligence Agency.
ReuelMGerecht 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe Signal exchange published this week in The Atlantic….revealed a split within the Trump administration over Yemen — and, more importantly though indirectly, over Iran.
And yet, the media’s continuing obsession is with how Jeffrey Goldberg was included on that thread. The obvious answer is that someone wanted him on it. Who and for what purpose remain to be determined, but once more, the distraction outweighs the actual story.
More obvious another JG in contacts.
Seems to me that Mr. Gerecht is over thinking this.
Israel’s serial assassinations (incuding in “secure locations” in Tehran itself), its restart of the assault on Hamas, its near destruction of Hezbollah, that wonderful attack-by-pager, etc., most of which happened after Trump’s re-election, totally changed the dynamic in the Mid-East. Does anyone think that Hamas would have released the hostages that it recently did if Trump didn’t back up the Israelis?
Trump happily joins in, throwing around bombs and missiles, and threatening people left and right, because he’s as sick of this Islamist nonsense as any of us. The whole world sees his enemies taken aback and soon to wind up on the rocks. He likes that. Makes him feel like Tony Soprano. And it makes the Dems, who tried every trick to literally destroy him, look like panty waisted assholes.
Diplomacy is personal now.
It sounds like what is required is regime change in Iran.
Yes but not done by any external power.
The trouble is that it won’t happen on its own.
It did last time, 1979.
That’s because the Mullahs had the guns. If someone can help provide arms and logistical support to the resistance, they may have a shot.
I don’t recall Lech Walensa having guns…
Why? Because the Neo-Con MSM says so?
But anyway – OK, regime change it is then, so here is the bell on the ribbon – now off you go, go ‘Bell The Cat’ and we will wait here.
Back in 1964 during the Radfan campaign an SAS patrol came off second best in a clash with Adeni/Yemeni ‘rebels’.
Subsequently two of the patrol were beheaded and their heads displayed on stakes in Taiz, Yemen. There was an unsuccessful attempt to retrieve those heads; This ‘debt’ has yet to be repaid.
Britain has no interests in the Middle East. It only ever had them because it controlled India, then because of oil. Neither apply now.
It did provide some excellent ‘live firing’ training during the Oman Wars, 1954-1959, 1963-1976.
I’ve read that 40+% of European trade is dependent upon the Red Sea, and 5+% of US trade, yet the US with help from the UK is bearing the brunt. Because the US has borne the brunt for Western Europe for decades, it doesn’t mean it’s required to be forever.
I find it compelling that the German government is making initial efforts to carry their weight on defense. Years of mouth-music by previous US administrations meant nothing. Keep up the good work in criticizing Trump, but recognize positive changes.
The U.S. first used nuclear weapons – to end the war with Japan – 80 years ago. It looks like the U.S. is going to do it again, this time putting an end to Iran’s “Axis of Evil”. Maybe it will have Israel’s help, but it doesn’t need it. The geopolitical timing is particular favorable now. Putin will not materially object as long as he and Trump are talking. Neither will Xi. Nor is there much Kim Jong Un could do to prevent this.
Except, it’d open the door for those regimes to use them too, especially the ‘tactical’ variety.
They’re meant as the ultimate deterrent, not weapons of choice.
Scott Ritter is saying that US Will Nuke Iran – but he also says it will result in the end of life on Earth, he has a less sanguine opinion than you.
What the hell makes you think that any of this warrants a nuclear attack?
For all the saber rattling going on recently, I for one am terrified of the ramifications of having a 90 million strong country like Iran collapse. Syria and Iraq was already bad enough but Iran would be so so much worse. And that’s to say whether or not invading Iran wouldn’t be a massive debacle worse than Vietnam – Iran is super mountainous, and has fought off many invaders throughout its 2000 year history. The war would last decades and probably end like Afghanistan with the same people in charge and trillions wasted for no sensible purpose. And ofc, Iran has no global ambitions, being over the ocean from the US and having little to no relevancy outside of the middle east so there would be little benefit to the US from attacking it. For all these reasons, I think attacking Iran would be a ridiculous idea and I hope that sense prevails.
So, will Reuel Marc Gerecht and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a host of IC-adjacent NGOs be shortly ginning up a Something-gate to teach VP Vance a lesson?
People discuss who has and who hasn’t an interest in making the Suez Canal safe for all shipping but I would have thought that the world benefits. Doesn’t every country benefit from goods shipped back and forth? We desperately need a combined forces effort to clear these scum and prevent new groups forming.
The Houthis cannot be deterred, but they are a medieval society unable to produce the missiles that they are firing. So indeed, the solution is to cut off Iranian supplies directly. Since they are supplied by sea, this shouldn’t be too hard. Except that with the level of incompetence revealed by the Signalgate, it is not clear that the current administration is capable of achieving even this.
I’m surprised most know where Yemen is. They probably thought they were bombing Oman
They are learning their geography as they move along. Where is Lesotho?
Is it in your ass?
“… they are a medieval society”
If only!
The Rasulid Dynasty which ruled Yemen in the Medieval period was, in many ways the most brilliant era in the history of Yemen and one of the most culturally sophisticated small states in the world at the period.
The Rasulids ran an orderly, centralised, peaceful oasis in a region in turmoil. They traded with India, China and the East Coast of Africa and the Sultan’s irrigation schemes turned the mountainous desert into a Palm garden.
Both Zheng He and Marco Polo visited and described the peace and propsperity of Medieval Yemen.
‘”’The Roman Empire tried to conquer Arabia Felix (modern-day Yemen) to get control over trade routes to India. The military campaign under Emperor Augustus resulted in failed conquest ””
Felix Arabia means Happy, Prosperous – and even Rome could not conquer them. The foolish, uncultured, ignorant redneck Hegseth is so out of his depth that everything he touches will be a disaster. He is no Emperor Agustis who tried and failed to conquer Yemen. More Yosemite Sam thinking he will pull one over on Bugs Bunny….. but less capable –
Did you ever see Sanaa as it was?
The Yemenis are producing their drones and missiles for the most part. They are much more sophisticated than you say.
Also – they are NOT Puppets of anyone. They are not the sort one can either Buy, nor Bully.
Watch some Colonel David Lewis – you know the one who was refused a place in the NSA under Tulsi’s request as he is Not a Neo-Con warmonger, but in fact a Actual Expert.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svRuzUrUJ6I
I agree. As any society infested by jihadi ideology, the Yemeni do not care about casualties. Yes, you can kill the leadership, but this is tedious process and sucess is not guaranteed. To remove the threat you have to cut off the supplies. You can do it by cutting off the humanitarian aid as this is what sustains the population and allows the government to spend the money on the the army. However, this is of course not very humane. Alternatively, you need to cut off the weapon supply from Iran.
Why not do both.
This is a compelling analysis, but it misses a crucial question: why is the Middle East perpetually at war and central to the global weapons trade?
It’s not just about Iran and its influence. The region operates on a different political logic—where militant groups like Hezbollah or the Houthis, often mistaken for governments, are actually non-state actors. These groups are not just organic; they are often created or supported through covert operations to maintain conflict and keep the war economy alive.
Much of the weaponry isn’t produced by Iran or Russia, but flows through black markets tied to the U.S. and its allies. So who really profits?
The Middle East has become a testing ground for military innovation. The real goal isn’t victory—it’s experimentation. New weapons are tested in real time, refined, and then sold to countries not at war, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE. Follow the news from a 360-degree lens—not just the mainstream narrative—and this cycle becomes clear.
Our technological advancements—GPS, satellites, even smartphones—began as military tools. War drives innovation, but only in one direction.
Compare this to countries like China, where military innovation is balanced with investment in infrastructure, manufacturing, and civilian development. In contrast, we live in a system of permanent war innovation—where conflict is not a failure, but the point. Most people do not understand this cycle and just stay in the constant confusion of asking why?
Iran developing nuclear is not allowed simply because it may break the cycle of experimentation! This seems a very well oiled system going on since literally 1945! just different narratives and news cycles!
I like a good conspiracy hypothesis.
The error in this article is that all intelligence says that Iran isn’t developing nuclear weapons.
Possibly he wants to emulate George W Bush and go after non existent WMD…
I would respond but there is a pig flying right past my window.
You just did respond…lol
Colonels Lewis, MacGregor, Wilkerson all say exactly that, as do CIA MacGovern and Wilson, and Jeffery Sachs and Mershimer, and Mercourious and Ritter (USA Nuc weapons inspector) and every person Except rabid Neo-Con warmongers say Iran is NOT making Nukes. The Iranian Mullahs even wrote a Fatwa saying Nukes are ‘Un-Islamic’ and forbid making them. Plus Iran is a member of the Non-proliferation pact outlawing them.
But Unherd is on the side of ‘bomb first and let God sort them out’. Well, excepting their atheist cosmology – maybe bomb first and then let Blackrock and Vanguard rebuild them later.
They existed just ask the people of halabja.