Former U.S. ambassador on Saudi Arabia's struggle to defend against Houthi attacks

The Houthis are an armed movement based in Yemen. The article describes them as something like an Iranian proxy, but also says they are independent-minded and not necessarily controlled by Iran. Their conflict with Saudi Arabia matters because attacks have moved beyond Yemen’s battlefield and threaten Saudi cities, energy facilities, and civilians.

A six-month truce became a de facto cease-fire that lasted until July. After the Iran war began at the end of February, the Houthis entered the fighting. Iran appeared to help by transporting advisers and weapons. The Houthis then seized coastal positions near the Bab al-Mandab and launched attacks that Saudi Arabia felt compelled to answer.

Saudi Arabia is now striking Houthi targets in force. The Houthis have responded asymmetrically, including attacks on airports and attempts to murder civilians in Riyadh and elsewhere. The article presents no easy military solution. Continued fighting could deepen the conflict, while the Houthis’ independence makes Iranian influence difficult to treat as complete control.

Saudi Arabia’s military partnership with the United States is enormous, but the article gives no exact total value or troop count. It calls Saudi Arabia the largest customer for U.S. arms exports and says the kingdom spends tens of billions of dollars on U.S. warplanes and air-defense systems. The relationship has also lasted decades.

The partnership is built around equipment and security expectations. Saudi Arabia operates U.S.-origin Patriot systems and relies on American military technology to protect vital sites. Michael Ratney says the Saudis expect U.S. support when their country is under attack, not merely weapons sales during peacetime.

The current crisis is testing that relationship. The United States is reportedly providing intelligence, targeting, and planning assistance, but Saudi Arabia wants U.S. airstrikes capable of seriously weakening Houthi attacks. President Trump has remained ambivalent, possibly because of military limits or reluctance to open another front.

Patriot systems are designed to intercept airborne threats, but no air-defense network provides perfect coverage. The article says Saudi Arabia has considerable U.S.-origin defenses, including Patriots, yet those defenses are stretched thin. That matters because the kingdom must protect a large and economically vital energy system while also defending population centers and airports.

The key mechanism is asymmetry. The Houthis can choose the timing, direction, and form of attacks, sometimes using methods that defy conventional air-defense systems. Saudi Arabia therefore has to decide which sites receive the strongest protection. Ratney says the kingdom is prioritizing energy infrastructure because it remains the lifeblood of the economy, leaving other places more exposed.

The airport attacks showed the limits of the existing shield. Ratney says Saudi Arabia needs more defenses, while the Houthis have demonstrated an ability to strike infrastructure and civilians. More equipment may help, but it will not by itself remove the underlying threat or end the conflict.

The Bab al-Mandab is a narrow strategic waterway between Yemen and the Horn of Africa. The article matters here because Houthi control of nearby coastal positions can threaten ships carrying oil. It also places Saudi energy infrastructure at risk, making a local battle relevant to energy security far beyond Yemen.

The mechanism is geographic leverage. Positions near a major maritime passage can let an armed group threaten vessels or force them to avoid the route. The article says the Houthis took coastal positions in a lightning campaign. Those positions threatened shipping of oil and Saudi energy infrastructure, prompting Saudi Arabia to respond.

The danger is both economic and military. Saudi energy facilities are described as the lifeblood of the kingdom’s economy, while attacks on shipping can create wider pressure on fuel supplies and prices. The article does not provide specific market losses, but it shows why fighting near the Bab al-Mandab raises the stakes beyond the immediate battlefield.

If attacks and airstrikes continue, Saudi Arabia could face repeated damage to energy infrastructure, airports, and other civilian sites. The article calls energy infrastructure the lifeblood of the Saudi economy. It also describes Houthi attacks that target civilians, including attempts to murder people in Riyadh and elsewhere. The immediate human cost is therefore severe.

The conflict could also affect energy markets through threats to oil shipping near the Bab al-Mandab. The article does not give price forecasts or estimate global losses. It does establish the mechanism: coastal positions threaten oil shipping, while attacks threaten Saudi facilities that support its economy. Disruption would therefore matter outside the battlefield.

Politically, continued attacks could increase Saudi anxiety and pressure the United States to intervene directly. Ratney says Saudi people were angry and in solidarity, but also anxious about the conflict’s direction. More Saudi strikes might weaken Houthi capabilities, yet could also intensify retaliation and widen the war.

Saudi Arabia’s military options include continuing or intensifying strikes against Houthi targets and strengthening defenses around energy sites, airports, and cities. The United States can provide intelligence, targeting, and planning support. It could also conduct airstrikes, which Saudi officials reportedly want because they might seriously degrade Houthi launch capabilities.

The diplomatic starting point is the earlier six-month truce, which became a de facto cease-fire lasting until July. Restoring a cease-fire could reduce attacks without requiring a wider war. That would be difficult because the Houthis are independent-minded, Saudi Arabia is frustrated, and Iran appears to be assisting them. The article does not describe a specific negotiation formula.

The United States must weigh support against escalation. President Trump has been ambivalent about joining the fight, possibly because of limited military capacity or reluctance to open another front. A combination of defensive help, careful intelligence support, and renewed cease-fire efforts offers a less expansive path than direct U.S. combat, but success is uncertain.

Asymmetric warfare is conflict in which opponents use very different strengths and methods. A weaker group avoids matching a stronger military plane for plane or missile for missile. Instead, it seeks vulnerable targets, chooses unexpected methods, and imposes costs that expensive defenses cannot fully prevent.

The article gives a clear example. Saudi Arabia has considerable air defenses, including U.S.-origin Patriots. The Houthis still launched attacks that Ratney says could defy conventional air-defense systems. They seized coastal positions near the Bab al-Mandab, threatened oil shipping, attacked airports, and targeted civilians. Their advantage comes from creating many urgent problems for a defender with limited coverage.

This does not mean the Houthis are militarily stronger. It means they can challenge Saudi Arabia’s defenses without defeating them in a conventional battle. Saudi Arabia must prioritize energy infrastructure, while the Houthis can search for gaps elsewhere. The result is high political and civilian pressure even when the stronger side has superior weapons.