American magazine: The United States must crush Hezbollah and the Houthis in the same way it defeated ISIS and Al-Qaeda

The American magazine "Foreign Affairs" spoke about what it described as a "deterrence crisis" facing the United States and its allies, especially when it comes to non-state actors such as the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon, as the old theory of deterrence has proven to be "completely useless."

The magazine published a long analytical article by writer Carter Malkasian, translated by “Yemeni Youth Net”, in which he pointed out the increasing complex risks represented by the killing of American military personnel by Iranian missiles, a Houthi strike on a US Navy ship, or the sinking of another cargo ship over time.

He believed that any of these events would force Washington either to engage in a larger war or to retreat, considering that both options reflect the failure of deterrence.

Nowhere has this been more evident than in the Middle East in recent months, where Iran and its network of proxies have appeared poised to attack U.S. military bases and service members, sink commercial ships, launch direct attacks on Israel, and perhaps ignite a larger regional war.

If Washington wants to prevent further erosion of deterrence in the region, it will need to demonstrate greater willingness to respond. Focusing on Hezbollah and the Houthis will not suffice; the only way to restore deterrence, the author believes, is to go after Iran.

He added that Washington should signal to Tehran that damage to American ships or other ships passing through the Red Sea will be met with retaliation on Iranian assets or territory.

pressure on the shepherd

The author downplayed the usefulness of traditional deterrence theory, saying it is of little use when it comes to dealing with non-state actors such as Hezbollah and the Houthis, since armed gangs lack the high-value military targets that states have.

Because the guerrilla units are mobile and well-hidden, the missile systems they use are difficult to eliminate.

The United States has a history of crushing “terrorist organizations and armed gangs” through a combination of intensive surveillance, airstrikes, drones, special operations, and coordinated raids with partner forces, he explained. That’s how it defeated the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) and al-Qaeda and held off the Taliban for a decade.

Hezbollah and the Houthis are thus vulnerable to the same tactics, and because they are close to the sea, the need for the United States to build expensive shore-based bases would be reduced. But this approach takes time, requires a great deal of resources, and involves a fair amount of destruction.

The writer stressed that the most effective way to deal with such groups is to pressure their sponsor, Iran, by conveying the message that continued missile attacks will have consequences.

Although the author considers this path imperfect: Tehran will deny its influence over its proxies and accuse the United States of escalation—and Hezbollah and the Houthis have their own interests and may not listen to their patron—he stressed that both groups, however, depend on Iranian support, and Tehran’s willingness to fight the war on their behalf is by no means guaranteed, giving Iran significant leverage to persuade them to stop.

Washington must make clear the risks to Iran: “all-out war and damage to Iran’s vital interests,” the author said. The Biden administration must also tell Tehran that it will avenge the loss of American lives, and that Houthi missile attacks in the Red Sea must stop. Before a stray missile hits a ship, every Houthi anti-ship missile launch must be accompanied by U.S. action against Iran.

This could take the form of surveillance within territorial waters, firing warning shots at Iranian ships, or boarding Iranian merchant ships that might be smuggling weapons, he said. The Pentagon would also have to think of creative ways to show that Iranian military assets could be hit immediately, such as through cyberwarfare or special operations.