The article says they struck one, the one carrying Russian oil, and targeted (but did not strike) two others. No strikes the U.S. would care about.
It looks like the U.S. is pursuing a counterbattery strategy in Yemen. Keep assets remote. Watch for enemy fire. Use their revealing their locations by firing to counterstrike. It's a safe, effective but slow strategy.
I was premature to call it a success--the Red Sea hasn't re-opened. But the risk to global trade has been sidelined to the extent that the entire debacle is a negigible sideshow.
From the Wiki page: "In April, Tim Lenderking, the United States special envoy for Yemen, stated that he hoped to achieve a diplomatic solution with the Yemeni Houthis in regard to their attacks, and that the US would consider removing the Houthis from its designated terrorist list if they ceased their attacks."
You can check the status of the blockade here. [1] Scroll down to the bottom, and they have a regularly updated graph of traffic through the Suez. US airstrikes started January 12th.
Blockade means blockade. This is a traffic rerouting. It's a bit nutty to say the U.S. vs Houthis is in any way a policy failure for the U.S. The threat was reduced and then it ceased to be pressing.
Contrast that with the oil markets before the U.S. intervened.
> the United States special envoy for Yemen, stated that he hoped to achieve a diplomatic solution with the Yemeni Houthis
Sure, this was never contested. Again, they're an irrelevant fighting group. What's desired is for the missiles to stop so they can go back to threatening the Saudis and we can reposition naval assets from playground patrol duty.
On the linked graph, be sure to expand the date out to "all" or at least the past year. It defaults to a 3-month window, which obviously misses the impact, since the blockade began more than 3 months ago. Not only has the threat not been reduced whatsoever, but there are substantially fewer ships traversing the Suez today than when the US began its air strikes! The nice thing about this military intervention, relative to most, is that the results are objectively and quantifiably measurably.
> Not only has the threat not been reduced whatsoever, but there are substantially fewer ships traversing the Suez today than when the US began its air strikes
I am seeing statistically fewer strikes on friendly ships after the intervention versus before. And less oil-price volatility. The goal wasn’t to bail out the Suez, it was to calm markets—ships circumventing the Red Sea does that as cleanly for American purposes as the Houthis packing up.
Hahahah, you're something else buddy. No, obviously the goal of "Operation Prosperity Guardian" was to "end the blockade and counter threats by Houthi forces against international maritime commerce in the region." [1] Ships could happily sail around the entire African continent without a multi billion dollar military operation and invasion. "The region", the Red Sea, is an area you have to purposefully seek out and sail into during this voyage.
Obviously there's been less strikes, because the blockade has been completely successful, meaning Israel linked ships aren't even trying. What was probably tens of billions dollars wasted trying to stop it has been a complete failure and waste of money, like usual.
The Houthis’ effects on global shipping markets, specifically prices, has ended. Their effect on oil prices has ended. Their technical capability to target ships has degraded to the point that they’re potting Iran’s allies all while their firing rate is markedly down. They were a front-page nuisance, now they’re another regional mischief.
Some won’t be happy with anything short of America removing the Houthis from power entirely, but fortunately there are adults in the room who know when to call a win.
Lol, no it hasn't. Shipping rates are about twice what they were before the blockade started. [1] The actual cost for Israel linked ships is of course far higher - that table just gives you an average global shipping price index, which the Israeli linked ships alone have sent skyrocketing. Even oil is indeed up, though it was never a motive to begin with.
You are literally just making up random things to try to convince yourself of what you want to believe, to the point I can't even tell if you're being serious.
The article says they struck one, the one carrying Russian oil, and targeted (but did not strike) two others. No strikes the U.S. would care about.
It looks like the U.S. is pursuing a counterbattery strategy in Yemen. Keep assets remote. Watch for enemy fire. Use their revealing their locations by firing to counterstrike. It's a safe, effective but slow strategy.
I was premature to call it a success--the Red Sea hasn't re-opened. But the risk to global trade has been sidelined to the extent that the entire debacle is a negigible sideshow.