Is restraint part of an American strategy to encourage Europe, China, and Egypt to enter the conflict more directly? While America is hurt by the conflict, those other countries feel the impact more strongly, and yet they are doing little because they expect the US Navy to deal with it. Can you comment on that dynamic?
Appreciate this post, it has been very tough to find any explanation for Americas lack of response against the Huthis. Interested in a follow up now that we are striking back, but the attacks against shipping continue seemingly unabated.
You might have added that on 12 October Blinken said there was no "direct evidence" of Iran's involvement on 7 October as evidence of US permission for Iran's proxies to commit illegal acts of violence. And on 22 October he said "We are concerned at the possibility of Iranian proxies, escalating their attacks against OUR OWN personnel, OUR OWN people" (my emphasis), again intimating that the US would not retaliate against Iran for its proxies' actions against Israel or other allies.
The Houthi action in the Red Sea, the strait of Bab al-Mandab and Gulf of Aden has been laughably incompetent, but because insurance doesn't cover acts of war, even the Chinese line COSCO has halted shipping to Israel. All this suggests that Iran is not involved (Iran is not going to do anything PRC tells it not to), and that therefore the escalation ladder argument doesn't apply.
Today, however, Houthis have announced they are targetting US vessels - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67932725. If they carry out this threat, and if the war of words between Hizbullah and Israel gets louder, then Iran and the US allies might each place a hand on a rung.
Countering my argument that this is a ripple in a teacup are Frank Gardner, BBC’s Security Correspondent; Dr Elisabeth Kendall, Arabist & Middle East specialist and also The Mistress of Girton College at the University of Cambridge; Jane Kinninmont, Policy & Impact Director at the European Leadership Network; and Scott Lucas, Professor of International Politics at University College Dublin’s Clinton Institute > https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001v3w6
Again, the invisible hand of the CCP was not discussed. That it is invisible strongly implies that this is a Houthi-led and -inspired action in which Iran is not only not the prime driver, but so far is not even involved.
Is restraint part of an American strategy to encourage Europe, China, and Egypt to enter the conflict more directly? While America is hurt by the conflict, those other countries feel the impact more strongly, and yet they are doing little because they expect the US Navy to deal with it. Can you comment on that dynamic?
Appreciate this post, it has been very tough to find any explanation for Americas lack of response against the Huthis. Interested in a follow up now that we are striking back, but the attacks against shipping continue seemingly unabated.
You might have added that on 12 October Blinken said there was no "direct evidence" of Iran's involvement on 7 October as evidence of US permission for Iran's proxies to commit illegal acts of violence. And on 22 October he said "We are concerned at the possibility of Iranian proxies, escalating their attacks against OUR OWN personnel, OUR OWN people" (my emphasis), again intimating that the US would not retaliate against Iran for its proxies' actions against Israel or other allies.
The Houthi action in the Red Sea, the strait of Bab al-Mandab and Gulf of Aden has been laughably incompetent, but because insurance doesn't cover acts of war, even the Chinese line COSCO has halted shipping to Israel. All this suggests that Iran is not involved (Iran is not going to do anything PRC tells it not to), and that therefore the escalation ladder argument doesn't apply.
Today, however, Houthis have announced they are targetting US vessels - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67932725. If they carry out this threat, and if the war of words between Hizbullah and Israel gets louder, then Iran and the US allies might each place a hand on a rung.
Countering my argument that this is a ripple in a teacup are Frank Gardner, BBC’s Security Correspondent; Dr Elisabeth Kendall, Arabist & Middle East specialist and also The Mistress of Girton College at the University of Cambridge; Jane Kinninmont, Policy & Impact Director at the European Leadership Network; and Scott Lucas, Professor of International Politics at University College Dublin’s Clinton Institute > https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001v3w6
Again, the invisible hand of the CCP was not discussed. That it is invisible strongly implies that this is a Houthi-led and -inspired action in which Iran is not only not the prime driver, but so far is not even involved.