A Cautious Calm After the Storm: Yemen Imposing Its Equations on America

Yemen has renounced the agreement of parity and redrawn the balance of deterrence in the region, following 52 days of US aggression and military escalation. During this period, Washington launched more than 1,700 airstrikes and naval bombardments. This aggressive campaign soon failed in the face of Sana’a’s steadfastness, prompting Washington to turn to diplomacy and move toward a ceasefire agreement brokered by Oman.

The agreement was not a victory for America, as Trump attempted to portray and market it, claiming that Sana’a had “surrendered.” Rather, it represented a recognition of a new balance of deterrence imposed by Yemen, without making any concessions in its support for Palestine at sea and within occupied Palestine. The latest example was Friday’s two qualitative operations against Ben Gurion Airport in Lod and a vital target in occupied Jaffa (Tel Aviv). Sana’a affirmed its commitment to the provisions of the agreement with Washington, but warned of the consequences of the latter’s renewed aggression, as the equation would be harsher. The Amman ceasefire agreement between Washington and Sana’a marked a dramatic shift in the course of the crisis, shattering the illusion of American arrogance and hegemony in the region.

The second phase of the aggression against Yemen, launched by the Trump administration during his second term, quickly transformed from an aggressive campaign in which Washington demonstrated its military might into a strategic impasse that exposed the impotence of American power in the face of the will of a people and a state that refused to submit.

From the outset of the campaign, it appeared that the Trump administration was attempting to use Yemen as a bargaining chip in its open conflict with Iran and to settle regional scores related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

However, the US decision to designate Ansar Allah as a terrorist organization, impose economic sanctions, and intensify air and naval attacks did not achieve any of its stated objectives. Instead, it plunged Washington into a costly quagmire.

In just 52 days, the United States launched more than 1,700 airstrikes, deploying its most advanced arsenal, from aircraft to strategic bombers, led by the B-2, aircraft carriers, and electromagnetic interception systems. It raised the bar, exaggerated its threats, and over-optimized its ability to achieve its objectives.

However, this formidable force collided with a completely different reality on the ground. Sana’a did not retreat; rather, it surprised its adversary with effective military capabilities, shooting down seven American MQ-9 spy planes and prematurely grounding the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman. This development dealt a resounding blow to the prestige of the US Navy, especially after the downing or shooting down of two advanced F-18 aircraft during the past week. This was preceded and accompanied by qualitative Yemeni strikes that reached deep within the Israeli enemy in occupied Palestine. Yemeni forces announced the targeting of strategic cities and facilities, most notably Ben Gurion Airport, in a military message with regional and international strategic dimensions.

In the White House, it seemed that Trump, with his business background before his political background, was growing concerned as the cost of the war continued to mount and Netanyahu misled him.

As losses ballooned to $1 billion in the first three weeks alone, the US began to attempt to escape the impasse.

Instead of military escalation, the Trump administration shifted the tension to the telephone lines. Contacts with the Omani mediator revealed an American desire to save face without explicitly admitting failure.

This retreat was not solely the result of internal pressures; it also followed a defeat on the battlefield and a security scandal that engulfed the Pentagon following leaks via the Signal app. This scandal led to the dismissals of senior advisors, most notably the National Security Advisor himself.

The agreement reached and announced by our brothers in the Sultanate of Oman, welcomed by the majority of Arab and Islamic countries, was not merely a ceasefire, but rather a reflection of a new equation imposed by Sana’a from a position of equality.

Yemen did not make concessions, beg, or plead. Rather, it secured a cessation of aggression without backing down or changing its position on supporting Palestine or its operations in the Red Sea. More importantly, the agreement reflected Sana’a’s success in separating the American and Israeli paths. This upset Tel Aviv, which was surprised by Trump’s announcement without prior coordination. This precedent raised questions within Zionist circles and resulted in a crisis between Netanyahu and Trump.

On the other hand, Washington also had its gains. The agreement allowed it to escape the predicament of a costly and pointless war on behalf of Israel. It saved Washington what little face it had left of its military power, and allowed—diplomatically, not militarily—the resumption of safe navigation in the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait, interests Washington considers vital.

But more importantly, the agreement revealed that Yemen was not threatening international navigation, as Washington claims. Rather, its decision to target ships was limited from day one to Israeli vessels and those linked to Israel, within the context of a clear equation to lift the blockade on Gaza: “blockade for blockade.”

Yemeni forces did not target American ships until Washington decided to intervene militarily on behalf of Tel Aviv, forming a provocative naval coalition, and attacking Yemen. Were it not for this intervention, American ships would have passed safely, as would the ships of dozens of other countries without any threat.

Yemen’s engagement with the agreement was characterized by seriousness and commitment, but Sana’a made it clear that respect for the agreement is contingent on the behavior of the other party.

In this context, a clear warning came from Sayyed Abdulmalik Badr al-Din al-Houthi in a speech last Thursday, in which he emphasized that any American violation would be met with a response, potentially harsh. He said, “If the Americans return to aggression against Yemen, we will be on the lookout for them.” This statement reflects the clarity of vision of the Yemeni leadership, which realizes that the next phase will be a test of American intentions more than anything else.

Thus, Yemen has succeeded in transforming the aggression into a strategic opportunity and redrawing the equations of deterrence, not only with Washington, but with anyone who attacks, considers attacking, or relies on the superiority of weapons alone, without taking into account the equation of Yemeni will and resilience and the development of the Yemeni army.