In the opening days of 2024, the Biden administration found itself at a familiar crossroads of modern power: how to respond to persistent provocation without igniting a larger fire. Iran-backed Houthi rebels had struck Red Sea shipping two dozen times since November, threatening the arteries of global commerce, yet the White House had authorized no offensive response — weighing the cost of inaction against the deeper cost of escalation. The question before the national security team was not merely tactical but existential in its proportions: at what threshold does restraint become its own form
Biden weighs military strikes on Houthis as Red Sea attacks disrupt global shipping
Ten Houthi fighters killed in U.S. military response to New Year's Eve attack on Navy helicopters; mariners endangered by repeated missile and drone attacks on commercial vessels.
Shooting down drones is not enough to deter increasingly bold attacks
Mark
So the White House is actually considering strikes on Yemen now? That's a significant shift.
Mimi
They're examining options, which is different from deciding. The meeting on Wednesday was about developing a fuller picture of what military action could look like—including the possibility of doing it with other countries.
Luke
But Biden hasn't approved anything yet, right? Even after the Pentagon prepared options following the New Year's Eve incident where ten fighters were killed?
Mimi
Correct. He was briefed multiple times while on vacation but declined to authorize additional action. The administration says there's no disagreement between the White House and military, but current and former defense officials clearly think the current approach—shooting down drones and missiles—isn't working as a deterrent.
Mark
What's the actual pressure here? Is it just the military wanting to be more aggressive?
Mimi
It's broader. Twelve percent of global shipping goes through the Red Sea every day. Maersk and other carriers have paused operations there. The economic disruption is real and accelerating.
Luke
But we should be clear about what we don't know. We don't know what specific strike options the Pentagon prepared. We don't know what Biden's actual hesitation is—is it Gaza, Iran, something else? The reporting tells us he didn't approve action, but not why.
Mark
Fair point. What's the administration actually doing instead?
Mimi
They issued a joint statement with other countries condemning the attacks and warning of consequences. They're trying to build a coalition, hoping that pressure on the Houthis and Iran will stop the attacks without unilateral U.S. military action.
Luke
That's the diplomatic play. But it's been six weeks of attacks—twenty-four since November 19. If warnings worked, wouldn't they have worked by now?
Mimi
That's the tension the administration is sitting with. More forceful action risks expanding the Gaza conflict and pulling the U.S. into a regional war. But inaction means continued disruption to global trade.
Mark
So what happens next?
Mimi
The White House is supposed to present Biden with a list of military options. Whether he approves any of them is still open.
Il Polso
- Twenty-four Houthi attacks in six weeks — including a New Year's Eve firefight that killed ten fighters — have pushed the Biden administration toward a decision it has repeatedly deferred.
- Twelve percent of global shipping now flows through a corridor under active assault, with major carriers like Maersk already rerouting, sending costs and delays rippling through the world economy.
- The Pentagon has prepared strike options against targets inside Yemen, but Biden — briefed repeatedly while on vacation — has declined to approve any of them, creating visible tension between military urgency and presidential caution.
- Rather than act unilaterally, the administration issued a multinational warning to the Houthis, signaling a preference for coalition pressure over solo military action.
- The White House meeting on Wednesday was designed to present the president with a fuller menu of options, but whether he would choose any of them remained the defining open question.
In the opening days of 2024, the Biden administration found itself at a familiar crossroads of modern power: how to respond to persistent provocation without igniting a larger fire. Iran-backed Houthi rebels had struck Red Sea shipping two dozen times since November, threatening the arteries of global commerce, yet the White House had authorized no offensive response — weighing the cost of inaction against the deeper cost of escalation. The question before the national security team was not merely tactical but existential in its proportions: at what threshold does restraint become its own form of risk?
President Biden's national security team convened at the White House on Wednesday to examine military options against Houthi rebels, including potential strikes inside Yemen. The meeting, led by deputy national security adviser Jon Finer, reflected how seriously the administration had come to regard a campaign of attacks that had grown steadily bolder since mid-November.
Since then, Iran-backed Houthis had launched twenty-four assaults on commercial shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden — ranging from drone strikes that ignited fires aboard cargo vessels to coordinated barrages lasting hours. On December 26 alone, they fired at least twelve drones and five missiles over a ten-hour span. Despite the Pentagon preparing response options after each incident, the White House had approved none of them.
The most serious confrontation came on New Year's Eve, when Houthi fighters in small boats opened fire on U.S. Navy helicopters responding to a distress call. The helicopters returned fire, sinking three boats and killing ten fighters — the first fatal exchange of the escalation. The Pentagon sent additional options to senior officials. Biden did not approve them. Administration officials denied any rift with military leadership, though defense figures made clear they viewed defensive measures alone as insufficient deterrent.
The strategic tension was plain. Roughly twelve percent of global shipping transits the Red Sea daily, and major carriers had already paused operations there, adding cost and delay to international commerce. Yet strikes in Yemen risked widening the Gaza conflict, deepening U.S. regional entanglement, and provoking Iran directly.
The administration's preferred path, at least for now, was coalition-building. On the same Wednesday as the White House meeting, the U.S. and partner nations issued a joint statement condemning the attacks and warning of consequences. If military action came, officials hoped it would involve multiple allied navies rather than American force alone.
The attacks showed no sign of stopping. The day before the meeting, Houthis fired two anti-ship ballistic missiles into the southern Red Sea — missing their targets but endangering dozens of mariners. The White House was now preparing to offer Biden the most forceful options yet considered. Whether he would choose any of them — or whether restraint and diplomacy would continue to absorb the cost — remained unanswered.
President Biden's national security team gathered at the White House on Wednesday afternoon to examine military options against Houthi rebels, including potential strikes on targets inside Yemen. The meeting, chaired by deputy national security adviser Jon Finer, represented an escalation in how seriously the administration was treating a campaign of attacks that had grown bolder and more frequent over the preceding six weeks.
Since mid-November, the Iran-backed Houthis had launched twenty-four assaults on commercial shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. The attacks ranged from drone strikes that set fires aboard cargo vessels to coordinated barrages of missiles and projectiles lasting hours. On December 26 alone, the Houthis fired at least twelve drones and five missiles over a ten-hour period. Yet despite the Pentagon preparing strike options in response to these incidents, the White House had approved none of them. Biden, who was on vacation in the U.S. Virgin Islands, had been briefed repeatedly on the situation but declined to authorize additional military action even after the most serious confrontation to date.
On New Year's Eve, Houthi fighters in small boats opened fire on U.S. Navy helicopters that were responding to a distress call from a commercial vessel under threat. The helicopters returned fire, sinking three boats and killing ten fighters—the first fatal exchange in the recent escalation. The Pentagon immediately prepared additional response options and sent them to senior White House officials. Biden did not approve them. The administration official responsible for coordinating the response denied any disagreement between the White House and military leadership over how to proceed, though current and former defense officials made clear they believed shooting down incoming drones and missiles was insufficient deterrent.
The calculus facing the administration was stark. Roughly twelve percent of global shipping passes through the Red Sea daily. Major carriers like Maersk had already announced pauses in their Red Sea operations, adding time and cost to international commerce. The economic disruption was real and growing. Yet military strikes in Yemen carried their own weight: the risk of expanding the conflict in Gaza, drawing the United States deeper into regional entanglement, and potentially triggering a broader confrontation with Iran, which backed the Houthis.
On the same Wednesday as the White House meeting, the administration took a different approach. The United States partnered with other countries to issue a joint statement condemning the attacks and warning of possible consequences if they continued. The strategy reflected Biden's preference for building coalition pressure on the Houthis and their Iranian sponsors rather than acting unilaterally. If military action did come, administration officials hoped it would involve navies from multiple nations.
The pattern of attacks showed no sign of slowing. On Tuesday, the day before the White House meeting, Houthis fired two anti-ship ballistic missiles into the southern Red Sea—the twenty-fourth attack since November 19. The missiles missed their targets, but U.S. Central Command noted that the assault endangered dozens of mariners and disrupted international commerce. Earlier in December, a Houthi drone had struck the Al Jasrah, igniting a fire, and hours later a missile hit the MV Palatium 3, also causing a fire. On December 3, a sustained barrage over nearly eight hours had struck three separate vessels while U.S. Navy ships scrambled to defend them.
The White House was now tasked with presenting Biden a menu of military options more forceful than anything previously considered. The meeting was designed to flesh out the details of each option, including the possibility of coordinated action with allied nations. What remained unclear was whether the president would choose any of them, or whether the administration would continue to rely on defensive measures and diplomatic pressure while the attacks persisted and global shipping bore the cost.
Citazioni salienti
These illegal actions endangered the lives of dozens of mariners and continue to disrupt the free flow of international commerce— U.S. Central Command, regarding Tuesday's missile attack
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su CNBC ↗
War & Conflict