Trump Halts Yemen Airstrikes, Citing Houthi Ceasefire: A Victory Claim Amidst Lingering Doubts
President Donald Trump has declared an abrupt cessation of U.S. airstrikes against Houthi militants in Yemen, an announcement met with both cautious optimism and widespread skepticism regarding its durability and long-term implications.
Trump, speaking from the Oval Office on Tuesday, formally announced the conclusion of "Operation Rough Rider," a 50-day aerial campaign that targeted over 1,000 sites within Yemen. The President stated, "The Houthis have announced that they don’t want to fight anymore… They say they will not be blowing up ships anymore. And that’s what the purpose of what we were doing. So… we will stop the bombings."
Omani Foreign Minister Bard Al-busaidi, a key figure in facilitating peace negotiations, confirmed the existence of a ceasefire agreement reached through diplomatic channels. According to the agreement, neither party will target the other, including American vessels, in the Red Sea and the strategically vital Bab al-Mandab Strait. The stated goal is to ensure freedom of navigation and the unimpeded flow of international commercial shipping.
The abrupt halt to airstrikes follows a period of heightened tensions, marked by Houthi attacks on international shipping and, most notably, a missile strike that landed near Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport. This incident triggered a retaliatory Israeli airstrike targeting Yemen’s main airport in Sana’a, which military officials claimed significantly impaired Houthi air capabilities.
While Trump presented the ceasefire as a clear-cut victory resulting from U.S. military pressure, numerous experts suggest that the path leading to this point was paved with a carefully calibrated diplomatic escalation strategy that included threats aimed at both the Houthis and their Iranian backers.
Can Kasapoglu, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, emphasizes the importance of linking Houthi aggression directly to Iran. "The Trump administration signaled clearly: any further attacks would bring consequences for Tehran as well. That was the actual key to success." The strategy involved making Iran accountable for the actions of the Houthis, thereby increasing the pressure on the group to cease their attacks.
Lt. Col. Eric Navarro, director of the Red Sea security initiative at the Middle East Forum, describes the ceasefire as "a product of overwhelming pressure," highlighting the impact of precision U.S. strikes targeting Houthi command-and-control infrastructure and weapons depots, combined with the Israeli air assaults. "They saw the writing on the wall," Navarro stated, adding that sustained pressure is necessary, not only on the Houthis but also on the Iranian regime.
The U.S. military campaign involved a significant deployment of resources, including bombers operating from Diego Garcia and two U.S. aircraft carriers deployed to the region. This show of force, coupled with explicit diplomatic messaging, is credited with catalyzing the ceasefire.
Despite the Trump administration’s claims of success, not all analysts view the Houthis as a substantial threat or the military campaign as a justifiable use of force. Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East program at Defense Priorities, argues that halting the airstrikes is the correct decision, irrespective of whether the Houthis ultimately adhere to the ceasefire. "The Houthi threat was always more hype than substance," Kelanic asserts.
Kelanic contends that the Houthis’ attacks on shipping did not inflict significant damage on the U.S. economy or contribute to inflation, which she notes actually declined during the period of Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. In her view, the Houthis’ most significant achievement was "tricking the U.S. into wasting some $7 billion of its own resources by bombing them." She views Trump’s decision as a potential "offramp from endless escalation in the Middle East."
Jon Hoffman, a research fellow in defense and foreign policy at the Cato Institute, echoes this sentiment, characterizing Washington’s "open-ended and congressionally unauthorized strikes against the Houthis for targeting shipping in the Red Sea" as "the epitome of strategic malpractice," He argues that the strikes neglected the underlying causes of the conflict, namely the war in Gaza, failed to deter the group, and squandered billions of taxpayer dollars.
Military analysts remain wary regarding the Houthis’ long-term commitment to the ceasefire. Navarro expressed concern about the group’s reliability, warning that the ceasefire could simply be a temporary pause to allow the Houthis to rebuild their capabilities. "We need to remain vigilant… and adopt a broader strategy that includes not just military tools, but economic and informational pressure, and support for local alternatives to Houthi control in Yemen," Navarro cautioned.
The Trump administration, however, is presenting the cessation of airstrikes as a strategic triumph that demonstrates the effectiveness of combining military power with clear diplomatic objectives. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declared, "Massive WIN. President Trump promised to restore the freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, and he used great American strength to swiftly deliver on that promise. The world is safer with President Trump in charge."
Kasapoglu acknowledged that if the ceasefire holds, it would represent a "major, major victory for the Trump administration." However, the ultimate success of the agreement remains uncertain. The long-term viability of the ceasefire hinges on the Houthis’ willingness to abide by its terms and the broader regional dynamics at play. Whether the current lull will transform into a lasting peace or merely a brief interlude in a protracted conflict remains to be seen. For the moment, however, the bombs have stopped, and Washington is claiming victory.
