US President Joe Biden has said that attacks on the Houthis will continue even as he acknowledged that the group have not stopped their Red Sea attacks.

The US carried out a fifth round of strikes on Yemen on Thursday after a US ship was struck by a Houthi drone.

White House spokesman John Kirby told reporters that US forces “took out a range of Houthi missiles” that were about to be fired towards the Red Sea.

He said the American attacks took place on Wednesday and again on Thursday.

On Wednesday, a Houthi drone hit a “US owned and operated bulk carrier ship” which later had to be rescued by India’s navy. It came as the US designated the Houthis as a terrorist organisation.

“Well, when you say working are they stopping the Houthis? No,” Mr Biden told reporters in Washington DC on Thursday before he left for a speech in North Carolina.

“Are they gonna continue? Yes.”

Archive

  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 个月前

    Not sure there was anything else going to happen about this. Houthis are shooting missiles so now they get missiles shot back in the hopes they’ll stop.

      • Tinidril@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 个月前

        Yeah, it’s just that simple. /s. The absolute maximum leverage the US has (short of threatening invasion) would be to withdraw aid. We could certainly do that, but China and/or Russia would be more than happy to take on the job. Do you figure that would be helpful to the Palestinians? These dumb shit takes on foreign policy drive me nuts.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    10 个月前

    It’s totally unexpected that bombing the mountain tribe that has turned into a very successful rebel group, with the same stuff they’ve been bombed with by Saudi Arabia for years, would not actually stop them and make them change their minds.

    I mean, weren’t both the US Adminstration and British Cabinet implying just a weak ago that the one strike back then would be it?!

    Surelly the History of US and UK interventions in the Middle East did not at all hint that one single strike against such an adversary would be enough???!

    Oh and by the way, for our dutch friends: Et was heel erg stom om met de VS en de VK mee te gaan (it was really stupid to go along with the US and UK).

    • Doorbook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 个月前

      When the Arab coalition got closer to Hudidah port to stop Iranian arms to reach the Houthi. The UK intervene claiming “Famine and war crimes”

      They wanted the Houthi there because the Saudi will keep buying militry aid.

      Now these same port and more got bombed with no media talking about famine or war crimes.

  • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 个月前

    It was a bit obvious.

    What’s more interesting - if US would continue to bomb them, would other actors take an opportunity against rebels? Yemeni monarchy, for example. Reigniting another war would be even more disastorous.

    • breakfastmtn@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 个月前

      I’m sure both the recognized Yemeni government and Saudi Arabia are absolutely stoked about this. It’s actually a bit weird how exuberant the Houthis seem about it all given how many people are sharpening knives in the background.

      • harold999@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 个月前

        Nope, totally wrong. KSA has demanded the US stop attacks.

        Just because you beat your wife all the time, doesn’t mean you’ll let anyone else do it.

      • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 个月前

        After the humanitarian disaster of Decisive Storm, it’s hard to understand. Maybe enough Iranian money can cure one of empathy.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 个月前

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    White House spokesman John Kirby told reporters that US forces “took out a range of Houthi missiles” that were about to be fired towards the Red Sea.

    US Central Command - which oversees US operations in the Middle East - said in a statement that it had “conducted strikes on two Houthi anti-ship missiles that were aimed into the Southern Red Sea and were prepared to launch” on Thursday.

    “US forces identified the missiles in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen” around 15:40 local time (12:40GMT) “and determined they were an imminent threat to merchant vessels and US Navy ships in the region”.

    Also on Thursday, the leader of the Houthis delivered a fiery hour-long televised speech in which he called it a “great honour” to be “in direct confrontation” with Israel, the US and the UK.

    Since then, the group has launched dozens of attacks on commercial tankers passing through the Red Sea, one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes.

    The strikes - supported by Australia, Bahrain, the Netherlands and Canada - began after Houthi forces ignored an ultimatum to cease attacks in the region.


    The original article contains 469 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 61%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

      • Arthur_Leywin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 个月前

        The Houthis attacked ships on the Red Sea. This could:

        1. Violate international law
        2. Destabilize the region
        3. Have an impact on global trade

        The Houthis fucked up and America is punishing them understandingly so. Can’t say the same for helping Israel but we should analyze events fairly and not have a knee-jerk reaction with " 'Murca bad" all the time.

      • Kepabar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 个月前

        President has wide latitude in matters like this. Air strikes in this context are legal for him. He can even deploy troops as long as their deployment isn’t longer then 60 days.

  • badbytes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    10 个月前

    Wow. As a progressive left voting Democrat, getting downvoted for not agreeing with establishment. OK, thanks. Lesson learned. Thanks democrats.

  • Andy@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    10 个月前

    This is so fucking stupid.

    Pros:

    • Doing so feels good/ on brand
    • Funds the military industrial complex
    • Popular among the neocons who Democrats think choose the president
    • Allows us to keep assisting with a genocide

    Cons:

    • Guaranteed to escalate
    • Costs us international influence
    • Costs us billions of dollars
    • Raises the prices of goods
    • Makes the electorate nervous and unlikely to reelect a president who seems to only oversee rising tension
    • Further entrenches the impression that we’re not actually a formidable threat if you learn basic geurilla tactics and don’t mind waiting us out
    • Further establishes our deep affection for genocide
    • Increases the likelihood of dozens of unstable and unpredictable indirect consequences
    • Oh… and strengthens the targets of our attacks and aligns with the adversaries goals

    Biden is fucking EVERYTHING up. He’s fucking up the middle east, he’s fucking up his reelection, and in turn he’s going to fuck us all right back into the Trump dimension.

    This is SO fucking stupid.

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      10 个月前

      What’s with these anti American hot takes that don’t make any sense.

      Your proposal is what exactly, to let Iranian backed terrorists to disrupt like 20% of the global shipping?

      That would be fucking stupid.

      • Andy@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        10 个月前

        I think your comment illustrates one of the biggest problems with our foreign policy.

        We appear to have completely lost our ability to think laterally or strategically. I get why my comment seems crazy when you think our only options are “ATTACK” and “surrender”.

        We need a strategic solution. The Houthis WANT a direct confrontation. They’ve said so, and their behavior is consistent with that. To figure out how to get them to stop, we need to ask: why on god’s green earth do a group of Yemeni rebels WANT a fight with the United States??

        The short answer is that they hate us deeply for the incredible violence and destruction we have and continue to inflict on them and the people they sympathize with, and we’ve destroyed so much of Yemen that they have nothing to lose. We turned it into a hellscape wasteland, so there is nothing more we can really do to them, and dying a proud and defiant death is pretty much the best offer on the menu.

        So, strategically, what if… they had a reason to not want to die? What if … I don’t know, we negotiated with partners in the region to help them grow some crops, and maybe provide them with a new security arrangement where we don’t just sweep in every 10 years and light all their children and grandparents on fire? And concurrently, what if we tried to find ways to reduce their access to weapons?

        Violence is not going to work. The region is spiraling out of control, and blowing everything up is easier for all the desperate radicals we’ve created across multiple nations than protecting our shipping lanes is for us. If violence no longer carries deterrence, it’s only utility is extermination. And if we embrace extermination, we radicalize more people. You can’t eradicate out of that situation, and trying just turns you into another of history’s great monsters.

        It’s bad. We need to rediscover the concept of strategy.

        • FarceOfWill@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 个月前

          If you let them do this with no response every idiot nation with a coastline is going to think shooting civilian sailors is a good way to get shit done.

          Allowing them to get away with it is escalatory for the world.

          • Andy@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 个月前

            First, the logic works in reverse, too. If they are trying to pull us into a confrontation that they believe benefits them, allowing them to do so also demonstrates a tool for controlling the US that others will be motivated to use, and is also escalatory.

            The problem is that we only think in personal, school yard fight terms. We’re act sad though each country has a singular, logically operating decision making process. In reality, international actors are much more like natural phenomena, like mold growth or rabbit populations.

            I’m not saying the school yard logic is baseless. When the US flinches, that definitely affects how Xi Jinping assesses our willingness to respond with force to a recapture of Taiwan, for instance. But: whether he decides to do that is not based primarily on whether he thinks the country as a whole has balls or not. It’s based on a combination of benefits and draw backs.

            So in the long run, if we wanted to prevent unification by force, we’re far better off engineering conditions that make unification a bad deal, even if we look weak rather than make it appealing enough to go to war even if we seem likely to destabilize the whole world over it

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      10 个月前

      Yeah, I thought one of his strong points was supposed to be foreign policy, but his stance on Israel has isolated the US and seems to be fueling chaos in the Middle East. If he wanted to just say “I’ll do what I want, I’m the president”, he could have at least had the decency to not seek reelection and doom us all.

      • SwampYankee@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 个月前

        The real mistake may have been attempting to pivot to Iran in an attempt to reinstate the JCPOA. As admirable a goal as that is, I also think it’s clear Trump squandered any trust Iran had in the US when he cancelled it. Iran has taken the Biden admin’s overtures as an opportunity to test its regional influence, instead of being a good faith negotiating partner - and why would the Biden admin have expected anything else when the US hadn’t been a good faith partner? Trump was awful on foreign policy, and set middle-east peace back decades, but Biden has completely failed to understand and adapt to the new status quo.

      • generalpotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 个月前

        Part of me thinks, we’ll see Hilary2.0 unfolding in 2024. He should have picked Newsom and stepped down.

        • Andy@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 个月前

          I hate Newsom. But you’re right, Biden looks like he’s going down in flames. I think he’s counting on Trump going to jail, because head-to-head, unless something changes, Trump is getting set up to coast to victory. It’s horrifying to watch.

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 个月前

            I wouldn’t go so far as to say “coast to victory”, I think both men are deeply disliked by factions of their electorate and thus could lose, but if it was literally anyone but Trump, I’d say it’s already a foregone conclusion.

  • badbytes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    37
    ·
    10 个月前

    As a Democrat, thanks Joe, for giving me more reasons to vote for another.