“The minute the Houthis say ‘we’ll stop shooting at your ships, we’ll stop shooting at your drones,’ this campaign will end, but until then, it will be unrelenting,”
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth
The United States has launched a large-scale military campaign targeting Houthi positions in Yemen, with Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth stating on Sunday (March 16) that the strikes would continue relentlessly until the Iran-backed group ceases its attacks on American assets.
According to the U.S. Central Command, a series of precision strikes were initiated on Saturday (March 15), aimed at protecting American interests, deterring adversaries, and ensuring freedom of navigation in the region. President Donald Trump confirmed in a post on TRUTH Social that he had authorised decisive military action against the Houthis, describing the group as terrorists.
Hegseth emphasised that the primary objective of the operation was to re-establish deterrence and secure freedom of navigation, suggesting that the administration was pursuing a policy of strength to achieve peace. He pointed out that, four months earlier, a single U.S. ship had come under fire 17 times while passing through the region, and that for over a year, vessels had been unable to navigate the waters without being attacked.
Reaffirming the importance of freedom of navigation as a fundamental national interest, Hegseth echoed Trump’s commitment to restoring security in the region through decisive military action. The latest operation marks the first U.S. strike against the Houthis since the start of Trump’s second term in office.
The recent escalation of United States military operations in Yemen, marked by significant air and naval strikes against the Iranian-backed Houthi movement, has sparked discussions about potential parallels with past U.S. engagements, notably the Iraq War. President Donald Trump authorised extensive attacks targeting Houthi infrastructure, including radars, air defences, and missile systems, aiming to restore security in the Red Sea and send a stern warning to Iran regarding its nuclear ambitions. This development raises critical questions: Is Yemen on the path to becoming a “new Iraq” for the United States? To explore this, we must analyse the historical context, objectives, strategies, and potential consequences of U.S. involvement in both conflicts.
Historical Context and Origins
The Iraq War began in 2003 with a U.S.-led invasion aimed at removing Saddam Hussein from power. The primary justification for the war was the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and the broader objective of promoting democracy in the Middle East. However, no such weapons were ever found, and the conflict quickly evolved into a protracted insurgency, resulting in large-scale civilian casualties, widespread instability, and a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy. The invasion created a power vacuum that fuelled sectarian violence and strengthened Iran’s influence in the region, particularly through its support for Shiite militias. Over time, the war became synonymous with U.S. strategic miscalculations, nation-building failures, and the rise of extremist groups such as the Islamic State (ISIS).
In contrast, the conflict in Yemen escalated in 2014 when the Houthi rebels, a Zaidi Shiite movement with strong ties to Iran, seized the capital, Sana’a, and overthrew the internationally recognised government of President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi. This led to a protracted civil war that quickly drew in regional powers. In 2015, a Saudi-led coalition launched a military intervention to support Hadi’s government, fearing that a Houthi-controlled Yemen would serve as an extension of Iranian influence on the Arabian Peninsula. The war has since devastated the country, resulting in one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.
The United States has played a dual role in the Yemen conflict. It has supported the Saudi-led coalition by providing intelligence, logistical aid, and weapons, while also conducting direct counterterrorism operations against groups such as Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and, at times, the Islamic State. Despite this involvement, Washington has largely avoided deploying ground troops, instead relying on targeted airstrikes and drone warfare to neutralise perceived threats.
One of the main justifications presented for the invasion of Iraq was the urgent need to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. The claim was delivered with certainty, bolstered by intelligence reports and impassioned political speeches, yet as history would reveal, these weapons were nowhere to be found. What began as a mission to neutralise an imminent threat quickly unravelled into a crisis of credibility, with the war’s legitimacy coming under intense scrutiny both at home and abroad.
Beyond disarming a dictator, Washington envisioned Iraq as the first domino in a grand strategy—one that would see democracy take root in the heart of the Middle East, inspiring a wave of political transformation across the region. The idea was that a free Iraq would set an example, proving that authoritarian rule was not an inevitability. But the reality proved far more complex. Instead of ushering in a new era of democratic governance, the war left a fractured nation, spiralling into sectarian conflict, with U.S. troops caught in the chaos of an insurgency that few had anticipated.
The latest U.S. strikes in Yemen have been framed as a necessary response to growing threats in the Red Sea, with officials insisting they are not acts of aggression but a defence of international shipping lanes. The Houthis, backed by Iran, have repeatedly targeted vessels in the region, turning a critical maritime passage into a high-risk zone. Washington, determined to reassert control, has made it clear that it will not allow these waters to remain a battlefield.
National Security Adviser Mike Waltz has pointed at the administration’s willingness to go further, signalling that Iranian positions in Yemen could also be in the crosshairs. This shift reflects a broader strategy—one that extends beyond immediate security concerns to the long-running effort to check Iran’s regional influence. The U.S. has long viewed freedom of navigation as a core national interest, and with global trade flowing through these waters, the stakes are far higher than just retaliatory strikes. At its heart, this campaign is as much about economic security as it is about military deterrence, ensuring that neither Iran nor its proxies can dictate the terms of passage through one of the world’s most vital chokepoints.
Scope and Nature of Military Engagement
The Iraq War involved a full-scale invasion with extensive ground operations, leading to a prolonged occupation and nation-building efforts. At its peak, over 170,000 U.S. troops were deployed in Iraq, engaging in combat operations, training local security forces, and assisting in governance.
In Yemen, U.S. involvement has been more limited, focusing on targeted airstrikes and support for coalition forces. The recent escalation includes deploying fighter jets from the USS Harry S. Truman and conducting airstrikes aimed at degrading Houthi capabilities. There is no indication of a large-scale ground invasion or a long-term occupation plan, suggesting a more restrained military approach compared to Iraq.
Regional Dynamics and Proxy Warfare
Both conflicts are deeply entangled in the broader power struggles of the Middle East, where rival states seek to shape the region’s political and military landscape to their advantage. In Iraq, the fall of Saddam Hussein created a vacuum that Tehran swiftly exploited, weaving its influence through Shiite militias and political alliances. What began as an American-led effort to stabilise the country ultimately tilted the balance of power in Iran’s favour, embedding it firmly in Iraq’s security and political apparatus.
Yemen’s war has unfolded along similar lines, often described as a proxy conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Houthis, with their growing military capabilities and deepening ties to Tehran, have become a formidable force, challenging Saudi influence along its southern border. The recent U.S. strikes must be understood within this larger context, i.e., a direct message that Washington remains committed to countering Iran’s expansionist ambitions and reassuring its Gulf allies. Yet, as history has shown, external interventions in such conflicts rarely lead to quick or decisive victories. The Houthis, hardened by years of war and sustained by Iranian backing, are unlikely to be easily subdued, much like the insurgent groups that tested American resolve in Iraq.
Humanitarian Concerns and International Perception
The Iraq War left behind a grim legacy: tens of thousands of civilian deaths, shattered infrastructure, and waves of displacement that reshaped the region. The chaos provided fertile ground for extremist groups like ISIS to emerge, turning Iraq into a breeding ground for violence long after the initial invasion. The war also severely damaged America’s global standing, with widespread criticism of its handling of the occupation, allegations of war crimes, and a perception of reckless interventionism.
Yemen, too, stands as one of the world’s worst humanitarian disasters. Years of conflict have left millions on the brink of famine, with healthcare systems collapsing and civilians caught in the crossfire. The latest round of U.S. airstrikes has reportedly resulted in civilian casualties, with the Houthis branding them as war crimes—an accusation that, if widely accepted, could further tarnish Washington’s reputation. Just as Iraq became synonymous with unintended consequences and prolonged suffering, Yemen risks becoming another chapter in the long history of U.S. interventions that escalate conflicts rather than resolve them.
Exit Strategy and Long-Term Vision
One of the critical criticisms of the Iraq War was the lack of a clear exit strategy and an underestimation of the challenges in establishing a stable, democratic government. The power vacuum and ensuing chaos underscored the importance of comprehensive post-conflict planning.
In Yemen, the U.S. has not articulated a long-term vision beyond the immediate military objectives. Without a clear strategy that includes diplomatic efforts, support for reconstruction, and engagement with local stakeholders, there is a risk of repeating past mistakes. A sustainable solution requires addressing the underlying political and socio-economic issues fuelling the conflict, rather than relying solely on military means.
In Yemen, while current U.S. involvement is more limited, there is potential for mission creep, where incremental escalations lead to deeper engagement than initially intended. The American public’s appetite for prolonged military engagements remains low, and any signs of an expanding conflict could trigger domestic opposition, reminiscent of the Iraq experience.
