The U.S. War Against the Houthis Is the Real ‘Signalgate’ Scandal : Benjamin H. Friedman, Rose Kelani / WPR
Article shared by Tom McDermott
As if the situation in Yemen were not already bad enough, the US has undertaken a new round of air attacks against Houthi controlled areas of Yemen. Arrests of UN and NGO personnel have led to an end to humanitarian operations in most of the country. Malnutrition is rampant, schools are closed and most health services have ceased to operate.
Press reports have focussed on the 'scandal' around US plans for air attacks having been discussed by a group of Trump Administration officials over insecure channels.
These stories miss the point. Friedman and Kelani point out that the real scandal was not the sloppy use of an insecure chat channel, but rather the decision to undertake these attacks in the first place - when there was rationale for the US to do so. The Houthi officials had not resumed their round of attacks on shipping, so that the attacks were more provocation than response. The authors point out that the attacks may draw the US into a much wider and more dangerous war in Yemen.
Equally concerning is that the US and most media continue to refer to such attacks as strikes against "the Houthis΅ as this was a small rebel group. The reality is that the attacks are against most of Yemen and most Yemenis.
Caught in the middle of any wider war will be the impoverished Yemenis already exhausted from years of war. Also caught up will be UN and NGO workers, most especially those already imprisoned by the Houthis. Tom
Quotes
“The U.S. campaign will almost certainly fail to halt Houthi attacks, and by failing, it will create a dilemma for the Trump administration.”
“What makes the campaign against the Houthis particularly egregious is that it might have been avoided.”
“The Signal chat fiasco… recalls Talleyrand’s famous line: ‘It was worse than a crime, it was a mistake.’”
Summary
The article argues that the true scandal lies not in the security breach of a chat among U.S. officials, but in the strategic folly of the military campaign itself. The authors assert that the Houthis pose only a minor threat to global trade and the U.S., and that the strikes are ineffective, costly, and politically self-defeating. Rather than de-escalate tensions or protect Red Sea shipping, the campaign risks long-term entanglement, drains U.S. military readiness, and undermines potential diplomatic paths—particularly those aligned with humanitarian goals in Gaza.
The authors highlight that the Houthis had paused attacks during the Gaza ceasefire and had clear, negotiable demands—namely, resumption of humanitarian aid to Gaza—making a diplomatic solution plausible and preferable.
The article argues that the true scandal lies not in the security breach of a chat among U.S. officials, but in the strategic folly of the military campaign itself. The authors assert that the Houthis pose only a minor threat to global trade and the U.S., and that the strikes are ineffective, costly, and politically self-defeating. Rather than de-escalate tensions or protect Red Sea shipping, the campaign risks long-term entanglement, drains U.S. military readiness, and undermines potential diplomatic paths—particularly those aligned with humanitarian goals in Gaza.
The authors highlight that the Houthis had paused attacks during the Gaza ceasefire and had clear, negotiable demands—namely, resumption of humanitarian aid to Gaza—making a diplomatic solution plausible and preferable.
Quotes
“The U.S. campaign will almost certainly fail to halt Houthi attacks, and by failing, it will create a dilemma for the Trump administration.”
“What makes the campaign against the Houthis particularly egregious is that it might have been avoided.”
“The Signal chat fiasco… recalls Talleyrand’s famous line: ‘It was worse than a crime, it was a mistake.’”
Comments
Post a Comment
If you are a member of XUNICEF, you can comment directly on a post. Or, send your comments to us at xunicef.news.views@gmail.com and we will publish them for you.