International relations discourse tends to be a bit wonkier than domestic American political debates. While this leads to the frequent lament, from voices like Dan Drezner, that American voters don’t care about international relations, it also insulates us from the more frustrating aspects of American politics. IR scholars don’t usually have to deal with knee-jerk activisty hot takes.
Well, we do now.
Apparently leftists think the Houthis–a militant group based in Yemen–are admirable anti-imperialist activists. This is because they’ve been attacking international shipping in protest of Israel’s attacks on Gaza. I guess it’s something like “we don’t like Israel, these guys don’t like Israel, so they must be good!”
And I guess I need to explain why they’re so wrong.
The leftists who love the Houthis
I saw conservatives complaining about progressives praising the Houthis and thought it was just a straw man hypothetical. I.e., “they’re so unreasonable on Israel I bet they’ll even support the Houthis.” But no, that’s really happening.
Helen Lackner in Jacobin claimed the Houthis Red Sea attacks are an authentic expression of the Yemeni people’s support for Palestinians. To be fair, the article included good historical context on Yemen’s orientation towards the Palestinian cause. And the argument was rather subtle, suggesting the Houthis’ attacks were meant to maintain support from their followers. It’s a bit of a leap, however, to claim that the only way they can support the Palestinians is to attack shipping unrelated to Israel. And Jacobin tagged it under “war/imperialism,” indicating how it views this argument.
Much US concern about the Houthis has to do with the ties to Iran, and fears that they will serve–or already serve–as an Iranian proxy force. But there are problems with the group itself.
Less subtle arguments come from US activists. During a December protest in Manhattan, the “Party for Socialism and Liberation” chanted “Yemen, Yemen make up proud; turn another ship around.”
I am staying off Twitter, but there are other examples there explicitly framing support for the Houthis as part of a broader anti-imperialist cause (and this was before recent US bombings).
Why support for the Houthis is so dumb
Again, I can’t believe I have to say this, but the Houthis are not a force worthy of admiration.
The Houthis are properly known as Ansar Allah, with their popular name coming from a leader, Hussain al-Houthi. They are part of Yemen’s Zaidi population, a sect of Islam related to Shi’ism. They organized into an insurgency in 2004, when the Yemeni government (at that time also led by a Zaidi) tried to arrest al-Houthi; he was killed later that year.
The conflict continued until the outbreak of the Arab Uprisings. The Houthis were part of the uprising against the Yemeni government. They made significant territorial claims, and took over the capital in 2015. This prompted a Saudi-led military intervention, which included air strikes and a naval blockade. The intervention exacerbated Yemen’s humanitarian problems, creating a massive crisis.
The United States should not get involved in a conflict in Yemen. But that does not mean the group we would be fighting are heroes.
Much US concern about the Houthis has to do with the ties to Iran, and fears that they will serve–or already serve–as an Iranian proxy force. But there are problems with the group itself.
Let’s start with their slogan: “God is great, death to the U.S., death to Israel, curse the Jews, and victory for Islam.” Al-Houthi expanded on the inclusion of Jewish people as an enemy in a few speeches. In one, he said Jewish people were the enemy because “they are the ones who move this world, who spread corruption” in it. In another he said Muslims “will not be delivered from the evil” of Jewish people “except by their eradication.”
There are other issues besides antisemitism. The Houthis have set up camps to “indoctrinate” the population under their control into their ideology. They have persecuted religious minorities, including Bahais and Christians. And they have imposed draconian restrictions on women, such as forcing them to always have a male guardian when travelling (particularly ironic given the progressive views of Western Houthi fans).
The Houthis also torture and repress those under their control. There have been reports of widespread abduction and torture of women in Houthi-controlled areas. And they arbitrarily detain and torture political opponents, according to Human Rights Watch.
And let’s talk about the attacks themselves. They aren’t petitioning the United Nations on the Palestinian’s behalf. They aren’t smuggling in humanitarian supplies. They aren’t even sending fighters against Israel. They are firing missiles at cargo ships sailing by their country. This is the equivalent of the climate change protesters who throw soup at paintings; it’s performative, and counterproductive. One can argue it’s an attempt to gain attention to their cause, but even their fans view their actions solely in the context of Israel so that isn’t working.
Complex thinking should be possible on international relations
Here’s the thing: I am not a hawk on Yemen. I first raised concerns about US military action in Yemen in 2010. I continued this with a series of posts after the Arab Uprisings. And I cheered Bernie Sanders’ efforts to end US support for the Saudi intervention in Yemen.
But I am capable of holding two thoughts in my head at the same time. The United States should not get involved in a conflict in Yemen, especially if that means bombing a country already experiencing a humanitarian crisis. But that does not mean the group we would be fighting–the Houthis–are heroes.
I don’t really think it’s that hard to understand. But maybe it is.
Some of this is the classic “tankie” phenomenon. This was a pejorative term for American Communists who actively defended authoritarian Communist actions, such as the Soviet Union sending tanks to crush anti-Soviet protests in Eastern Europe. Since the Cold War it’s morphed into a more anti-imperialist position. America, they argue, is an imperialist power, which is bad; so anyone that opposes America must be good. They tend to include Israel in this, as either an imperialist power of its own or a tool of American imperialism.
But I think a lot of it is a lack of information on international relations. Going back to Drezner’s lament, most American don’t pay attention to foreign policy. The lefty activists protesting Israel had never heard of the Houthis before they started attacking Red Sea shipping. They assume that any group “standing up” for Palestinians must be on the side of progressive causes, so they cheer them. And people like me, who are wary of the Houthis, must be hawks or, even worse, neoliberals.
I wish this post wasn’t necessary, but apparently it was.
Yikes, a prof to boot. This is one of the most ridiculous pieces I’ve come across yet and I’ve come across a multitude of silly pieces in past weeks. It’s like you decided one day I need to get my name out there too no matter the mental gymnastics I’ll have to jump through to finish this. It’s not enough that every single Arab state sits there and doesn’t do a damn thing about the genocide taking place upon their own brothers and sisters. It’s not enough to you to understand that putting forth anything before the UN means nothing…or do I need to run through the list of failed UN mandates? There’s a month long line up of endless trucks on the Gaza border attempting to enter Palestine, no shortage of humanitarian supplies but the US vassal state of Israel gets to mandate how very little can come into Gaza. The Arab states sit impotent. Yemen is not on the border of Palestine or do you need a geography lesson as well? Their missiles have been launched into Israel but largely ineffective thanks to US tax payer money supporting the vassal state’s Iron dome. So what else is God-fearing nation state to do? What it can do, which is to impact the economy and attempt to weaken this genocide-waging state? Yet your issue isn’t the impotent Arab states that welcome US beligerence and their bases? Your issue isn’t the senseless killings of thousands of innocent Palestinians? No! Your issue is with the poorest nation in the Middle East that has a government risking their future leadership in order to help it’s vulnerable brothers and sisters. Sit down white man, you don’t know a damn thing.
Your comment reads as a sentence to sentence recapping of buzzwords and phrases you’ve taken from far left circles. And no, no one is taking a seat. No one is going to forget what fundamentally evil organizations Hamas and the Houthis are, despite your efforts.
Love it. His only7 argument was their alarming rhetoric. Certainly no more alarming than that of militant United States nor Israel. The groups rhetoric was used to slur Hamas as well. I see Arab groups softening their rhetoric in response to the great sympathetic outpouring in America for Gazan’s.
Letting the Houthis know they are heroes is the most likely way to world peace in general. It’s the people against the oligarchs. That is what is now obvious. There is no such thing as a terrorist organization. That is clear. The real enemy is America’;s militancy and hatred of democracy. We have destroyed them everywhere and put up dictatorships in their place. We destroyed our own democracy when they passed corporate financing of federal elections. Has nothing to do with trump. The corporate financing scheme ended our democracy,
read closer. You think repressing women and religious minorities, and torturing political opponents is just “alarming rhetoric?” You think that makes them heroes?
From another professor (in France), this is a very interesting piece. Any call for more complexity in the analysis of international conflicts is welcome. The Houthi issue is tied up in the larger conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the next step is to see how the recent strikes will affect the recent understanding between those two countries. The dilemma is clear, attacks on shipping in the region represent a clear problem to national interests in the U.S. and in Europe. Is that national interest, however, outweighed by the potential problems stemming from further U.S.-UK military involvement in Yemen, given its regional ramifications? In my opinion, that is one of the most important questions at stake, which goes beyond the Houthi-Palestine relationship to larger issues. The question of “heroes” and “villains” obscures decent strategic analysis.
Again, thank you for this piece, which makes a very useful point.
thanks. the complexity re: Iran does worry me, which is why I’ve been against US involvement even if I’m not a fan of the Houthis.
Interesting you claim it is just “performative” when it is having the clear and desired material effect of harming Israel’s import/exports.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-eilat-port-sees-85-drop-activity-amid-red-sea-houthi-attacks-2023-12-21/
>The lefty activists protesting Israel had never heard of the Houthis before they started attacking Red Sea shipping.
This is not a justifiable claim. Many leftists have in fact heard of the Houthis when the US was helping Saudi Arabia bomb and starve the fuck out of them in the mid 2010s.
>They aren’t petitioning the United Nations on the Palestinian’s behalf.
Now /this/ is performative. Palestine has had multiple “petitions” on its behalf for decades with no material effect.
>They aren’t smuggling in humanitarian supplies.
How do you propose they smuggle in humanitarian supplies into Gaza on any influential scale? What humanitarian supplies would the Houthis even have anyway? (https://www.wfp.org/emergencies/yemen-emergency)
>They aren’t even sending fighters against Israel.
Of the three alternatives you propose, this is at least kind of a semi-viable alternative. Yet even still, there is still the problem of scale. It does not stand up to scrutiny that the Houthis could send an appreciable amount of fighters through multiple countries. It is incredibly unlikely that they would be able to enter into Gaza. The only somewhat avenue of option here would be for them to go to Lebanon but then that would mean agreements with Hezbollah and if Hezbollah doesn’t want them to instigate more then this alternative is also crushed.
—-
It just seems so clear that you are confusing support for this blockade that has multiple times been clearly stated to be in action for the Gaza genocide with unconditional support for the Houthis. You even start the essay with that strawman! (‘I guess it’s something like “we don’t like Israel, these guys don’t like Israel, so they must be good!”’)
At the end of the day these are a flawed group of people that are actually taking a material stand against Israel’s War (genocide) against Gaza. What are Western nations and leaders doing against Israel? At most they have wordy condemnations but no material response. Biden can’t even be bothered to withhold Israeli aid. The State Department insists they have “concerns” but you must admit these are performative press releases.
most Houthi targets have been completely unrelated to Israel- https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/security-aviation/2024-01-15/ty-article-magazine/30-attacks-all-red-sea-ships-targeted-by-the-houthis/0000018c-5df7-d6f9-afbc-5dff7a430000
Not every nation has the luxury of a massive intelligence apparatus to provide targeting info (and somehow kill unbelievable numbers of civilians anyway). So it’s a blockade. I would like to know what you think is a reasonable & non-performative reaction to the slaughter in Gaza from surrounding countries, if not this.
Okay, and?
The fact remains that there is a clear negative impact on both the Israeli port of Eilat as well as many Western companies that are shipping through the Red Sea. Companies from countries that explicitly through support or implicitly through in-action help Israel’s War.
The Houthis themselves have said it repeatedly, to paraphrase, as ‘stop the invasion and we still stop the blockade.’ Do you think they are lying? If they’ve been doing this indiscriminately for years your thesis would make more sense but they haven’t been. This very clearly started after months of US/EU in-action towards Israel.
You give three different options for what the Houthis could do, ignoring the issues with those options, yet one option is not the US/EU forcing material pressure on Israel to cease the invasion – why is that? Is it because you agree with the invasion or because you don’t want professional flak for taking a public anti-Israel stance? If you agree with the invasion and Israel’s conduct you should be forthright.
It is interesting that this blog hasn’t had any articles doing the supposed “in-depth” look at Israel’s recent actions in Gaza (no, your one article about Palestinian Christians is hardly an in-depth look of Israeli military policy). I cannot help but note that the most scathing article on this blog investigating Israel’s conduct is one from 2014 on Operation Protective Edge and questioning genocide (Megan Mackenzie). Meanwhile the current Israeli invasion of Gaza is costing exponentially higher lives yet near total silence here.
Yet the only thing you’re doing here really is “leftists bad.” You’re not taking any brave stance here, this is just reiterating the mainstream consensus of current American foreign policy.
Very convenient for everyone too skip over the Houthis treatment of the people they claim. Not a single one of you western Houthis supporters would make it one day over their. The literally want death for America and Americans and you bend over to take it dry why is this the right thing to do? I didnt agree with everything in the article but the fact remains the Houthis are not a good governing body. If you disagree please move there and find out for sure.
This is such a brainlet set of talking points.
Just like the author’s article you strawman the people that disagree with you. Literally NO ONE is saying they are a “good governing body.”
It is literally very simple:
1) Israel is taking actions that are tantamount to genocide in Gaza
2) Houthis have said repeatedly they are doing the blockading in service of Gaza
Therefore:
3) The Houthis are taking a moral stance of doing an anti-Israel action that:
3a) Has material negative effects on Israel (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-eilat-port-sees-85-drop-activity-amid-red-sea-houthi-attacks-2023-12-21/)
and
3b) Has material negative effects on Western companies that are either abetting Israel (US) or implicitly allowing it to happen (EU).
Literally no one is saying the Houthis are objectively moral agents that are Perfect People with perfect ideology. You’re making shit up because you don’t actually understand the people that you’re disagreeing with – just like the author of the article.
and the kidnapping of the crew of the Galaxy Leader, who had nothing to do with this conflict? You’re ok with that?
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/crew-seized-galaxy-leader-allowed-modest-contact-with-families-shipowner-2023-12-05/