Houthis claim major advance in Yemen and tighten grip on Red Sea shipping lane
Developed over time first seen 1 day ago
Yemen's Houthi movement has claimed control of the entire western Red Sea coastline after seizing Perim Island, at the mouth of the Bab al-Mandab Strait, a day after capturing the port city of Mokha from Saudi-backed government forces. The advance tightens the Iran-backed group's grip on one of the world's most important shipping corridors, raising fears of wider regional escalation. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has reportedly pressed US President Donald Trump to intervene militarily, but Trump has so far only offered intelligence and targeting support rather than direct action.
The offensive, which the Houthis say began on 3 September in response to Saudi "aggression", has also seen the group claim control of six districts in Taiz and Hodeidah, with hundreds of opposing troops reportedly killed, wounded or captured. The Houthis insist shipping remains safe except for Saudi vessels, though the standoff has already helped push up oil prices, with Saudi Arabia reliant on the strait for oil exports to Asia following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Separately, Saudi Arabia said its East-West oil pipeline was struck by drones launched from Iraq, forcing a temporary shutdown and injuring several people; Iraq's government condemned the attack, sacked a local military commander and launched an investigation, while Riyadh said it would not retaliate for now following a call with Iraq's prime minister.
- Houthis now claim to control Yemen's entire Red Sea coastline.
- Saudi crown prince pushed Trump for military action; Trump declined direct involvement.
- Iraq-launched drones hit Saudi oil pipeline, forcing a shutdown.
New here? Start with this
Yemen has been in a long-running civil war between the Houthi movement, which controls much of the north and west of the country, and an internationally recognised government backed militarily by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The Houthis are aligned with Iran, which has put them at the centre of wider regional rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Control of Yemen's coastline matters far beyond the country itself, because it sits beside the Bab al-Mandab Strait, a narrow sea passage linking the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean that a large share of the world's shipping, including oil tankers, passes through.
The Red Sea route has already been disrupted in recent years by Houthi attacks on vessels, prompting some shipping firms to reroute around Africa. Saudi Arabia depends on safe passage through the strait for its oil exports, particularly since the Strait of Hormuz, another key export route near Iran, has been closed. Any tightening of Houthi control over this coastline therefore has knock-on effects for global trade and energy prices, not just for the war inside Yemen.
The United States has long been involved in the region, both through support for Saudi Arabia and through its own naval operations to protect shipping from Houthi attacks. Iraq is also relevant here as the source of a separate drone strike on a Saudi oil pipeline, illustrating how instability in one part of the region can spill into another. Together these threads explain why events in Yemen are being watched closely well beyond its borders.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those who favour a firmer, more direct US military response argue that the Bab al-Mandab and Red Sea corridor is too vital to global trade and energy security to be left in the hands of an Iran-backed militia, and that allowing the Houthis to consolidate control risks normalising blockade-style leverage over international shipping. They see robust support for Saudi Arabia, a long-standing US partner, as both a matter of alliance credibility and a practical necessity given the knock-on effects on oil prices and supply chains, especially with the Strait of Hormuz already closed. Acting decisively now, in this view, deters further escalation rather than inviting it, by signalling that attacks on shipping lanes and allied territory carry real costs.
The case against
Those who favour restraint argue that direct US military involvement risks dragging Washington into another open-ended Middle Eastern conflict with no clear exit, echoing past interventions in Yemen that produced heavy civilian suffering without lasting strategic gain. They point out that the Houthis say non-Saudi shipping remains unaffected, suggesting the immediate threat to global trade may be overstated, and that a more forceful response could provoke Iran and widen the war rather than contain it. In this view, offering intelligence and targeting support while leaving ground escalation to regional actors is a prudent way to back an ally without shouldering the risks and costs of direct combat.
More coverage