March 18, 2025 - 4:45pm
The new US strikes against the Houthis in Yemen have revealed some tensions on the Right. Many hawks have applauded these strikes against the militants who have been disrupting global trade since late 2023 by firing on ships in the Red Sea. Others are more sceptical.
American Conservative editor Curt Mills, one of the more prominent “restrainers”, asked in a viral post on X: “What exactly is the US national interest in striking Yemen? Not seeing anything related to America here.” Meanwhile, iconoclastic Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie appeared to blame the strikes on the insatiable appetite of the “Military Industrial Complex”. Ann Coulter echoed these complaints by doubting the necessity of military action.
Among Republicans, this controversy taps into a broader debate between proponents of a Jacksonian rebalancing and supporters of a more comprehensive geopolitical restraint. While distrustful of idealistic “regime-change” endeavours, Jacksonians champion the targeted exertion of American power abroad to protect US prestige and national interests. Restrainers, on the other hand, are far more sceptical about the efficacy and sustainability of many forms of power-projection abroad.
The divide between these two factions can be seen in the military budget. Many Jacksonians have pushed for increased defence spending, but restrainers have suggested that even the Pentagon’s expense sheets should be trimmed. A populist hawk, Arkansas senator Tom Cotton has long pushed for boosting the defence budget, claiming that Joe Biden underinvested in the defence infrastructure. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz have long been advocates of an assertive defence position abroad. Even though he calls himself a “hawk”, the populist impresario Steve Bannon has floated cutting the defence budget as part of a bigger project of restraining government spending. Many restrainers see Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard as an important ally in the administration.
Unsurprisingly, these two groups see Trump’s strikes against the Houthis in diametrically opposed ways. Restrainers fear that these attacks could further risk conflict with Iran, one of the key backers of the Houthis. But Jacksonians instead see these strikes as valuable in part because they put pressure on the Iranian regime.
Yet one of Trump’s key traits — and, arguably, strengths — is that he is a man of no ideology or school. Rather than running foreign policy through the calculus of some ideology, he governs through a fusion of amour propre and an assessment of interest. From that perspective, the case for the Houthi strikes seems fairly straightforward. Pounding the Houthis seems a return to the “don’t poke the eagle, and let’s make a deal” approach to policymaking from his first term. In some respects, bombing the Houthis has echoes of Trump’s targeting of Qasem Soleimani in 2020. While the president has usually been averse to long-term “nation building” enterprises, he has long been willing to use American firepower to take out key adversaries, whether Soleimani, Isis or Houthi militants.
There’s a reason why US policymakers have for centuries prioritised free movement across the oceans; insecure access to commerce abroad threatens both US businesses and consumers. It’s clear that the Houthi attacks on container ships have helped drive up prices for global shipping, even for routes that do not traverse the Red Sea. Under Trump, the United States has tried to strengthen alliances with Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which have tangled with the Houthis. Meanwhile, Trump has also begun a campaign of “maximum pressure” against Iran to try to get that country to sit down and make a deal on its nuclear program. Raining fire on the Houthis is likely part of that effort.
Hitting the Houthis may also be a way of putting pressure on China. As Lloyd’s List Intelligence reported late last year, Chinese ships seem to be mostly exempted from Houthi attacks. It is obviously a strategic advantage for the United States for its allies to be blocked in the Red Sea while Beijing gets a free pass, so knocking back Houthi militants at once checks Beijing and reasserts American geopolitical standing.
The spiralling chaos in the Middle East became a whirlpool that sucked in the Biden presidency, and the new administration seems to be trying to avoid the fate of its predecessor. Trump’s team may hope that more targeted strikes could help keep American rivals and competitors off balance, which could give more space for the forging of regional settlements that would preserve key US interests while also sharing the load with American allies or at least security partners.
While they may disagree on many issues, both Jacksonians and restrainers think that the US needs to reassess its strategy in a time of new geopolitical limits. Trump’s structural realpolitik may give something to both sides. This is the finest policy tightrope. America does have long-term and long-standing interests in being able to project power abroad, which incentivises alliances as well as access to global commerce. At the same time, fiscal and geopolitical pressures offer new constraints; it’s not 1989 anymore. A successful rebalancing needs to take into account the reality of those constraints as well as imperatives of national greatness.
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.
SubscribeIt would be challenging to find an issue voters are less concerned about than airstrikes on Houthis in Yemen.
Indeed. Trump can bomb or shoot missiles at whoever he wants so long as it ends quickly enough or has negligible costs. Unless Americans are dying, voters will ignore foreign affairs as per usual, debates between political factions notwithstanding.
I think you underestimate how many anti war rightists voted for Donald because he kept bemoaning pointless wars. But, what Israel wants , Israel gets, dem or republican.
The Houthi’s have said: stop bombing innocents and we will stop.
But Israel don’t have to negotiate.
It’s their way or it’s anti – Semitic.
God l, those Epstein files would be interesting. Shame we will never see them.
Killing terrorists != war.
Define terrorist.
Is moving 50k plus non Hamas Palestinians out of the West Bank terrorism? Bulldozing houses terrorism? It is it only terrorism when non whites do it?
No those things are not actually terrorism, you might call them ethnic cleansing.
What is remarkable is the complete lack of any acknowledgement that the same number of Jews were expelled from many Arab States as Palestinians from their homes. In fact the Palestinians were not generally actively expelled, though it is true largely having been on the side of the Arab arm is he was trying to destroy Israel they were not allowed home .
Do you have any particular views on Hamas, who actually initiated this current conflict? It’s amazing how little that despicable organisation is mentioned by fanatical anti-Israelis. I wonder – would you have been particularly concerned about German citizens dying in World War 2?
And unfortunately the Gazan population elected Hamas in the first place. Theirs was a war of choice.
Well voters can be pretty narrow-minded and have very little understanding of economics and especially international relations.
The fact that shipping routes can be amended as they have been, shows the resilience of international trade and indeed capitalism. But it has undoubtedly increased costs which will certainly impact those ordinary people who are normally so concerned about the cost of living!
Should be obvious to anyone that it’s in America’s interest that its warships can use the Suez Canal.
Indeed. I believe the immediate trigger for this round of strikes was the Houthis shooting at an American destroyer. I doubt they meant to do it. Easy to misidentify vessels at the ranges of these missiles. Mistake or not, no sovereign government or rebel group should think they can shoot at American warships without consequence.
Yeah, and should be obvious that others wouldn’t like that, and that others have a problem with the ethnic cleaning and pulling out of ceasefires and the continued war crimes we see every day by a “non terrorist” state.
I accept that Trump isn’t the all-knowing solution to every problem but he seems to understand something the West has forgotten since the end of the Cold War/Soviet Union. You have to be prepared to deal with nations/despots that only respect strength and your ability to f*uck them up in a major way if they take liberties.
We’ve had three decades now of countries like my my own dear demented Canada jetting the globe and virtue-scolding about every progressive love project you can dream up. Sounded great in Western echo chambers but everywhere else? Yawn.
Putin isn’t a suicidal maniac. He is chewing off chunks of Ukraine because he knows there’s no existential threat for doing so. Trump is trying to convince him to be happy with what he has and call it a day. Iran has been using their Hamas/Hezbollah/Houthi proxies to make life difficult in the ME because they don’t see any prospect of a pushback serious enough to make them think twice. Iran doesn’t want WW3 any more than we do but they have to be shown that exporting and financing trouble will not end well for them.
So, you are saying Trump will eventually “deal with” Putin if he doesn’t fall into line?
Trump is bombing Houthis for 3 reasons.
First, they continue to destabilize American shipping. Second, they are Iranian puppets, and Trump wants Iran to pay attention. Third, they threaten and attack our best allies in the region, Israel and Saudi Arabia.
I said last year or whenever it was Biden began bombing Yemen that the Houthis probably were begging to be made an example of, however, I didn’t think air strikes would achieve that much as the Saudis spent nearly a decade doing that and achieved little tangible. I still have the same opinion.
Not that long ago, you could pretty much guarantee that the American Right would either be bombing someone, or advocating doing so. We live in strange times.
I often wonder how good a job America could do at autarky, especially if it expanded to encompass Canada and Mexico.
There isn’t much you can’t build or grow somewhere in North America.
Expand the trading bloc to cover Central and South America, and there’s very little need for trade with the old world.
Go down this path, and maybe America just loses interest in policing maritime trade routes.
Stop giving Israel bombs to drop on Gaza, then the Houthis will stop attacking ships and you won’t have to spend millions firing ineffectual rockets at them (something the Saudis did for a decade with no luck).
Much cheaper all round!
Hamas can release the remaining hostages and the bombing stops. Cause and effect.
Israel can abide by the terms of the ceasefire they agreed and withdraw from the parts of Gaza that they promised to.
Cause and effect
Dupe.
Israel, once again, backed out of the ceasefire. Israel did it. Hamas agreed to go to stage 2. Israel stoped the food and aid getting through. Cause and effect? What a genius you are.