RSS
Why the Houthis Think They Can Beat the US — And Why They’re Wrong
Protesters, mainly Houthi supporters, stand near a screen displaying senior Hamas official Khalil al-Hayya during a rally to show support to Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, in Sanaa, Yemen, Oct. 18, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Khaled Abdullah
The Houthi rebels have spent years crafting an image of themselves as a hardened, battle-tested force capable of standing up to the most powerful militaries in the region. Now, in the midst of heightened tensions in the Red Sea and ongoing attacks on commercial shipping, they’ve extended that illusion to the United States. Emboldened by years of asymmetric victories against Saudi Arabia, bolstered by Iranian weaponry, and legitimized by propaganda that casts them as the spearhead of a broader “resistance” movement, the Houthis have convinced themselves — and their supporters — that they are capable of not just resisting US military pressure, but prevailing against it.
This belief is a dangerous miscalculation.
Their confidence stems, in part, from real battlefield experience. For nearly a decade, the Houthis have survived and even thrived despite relentless airstrikes, economic blockades, and shifting coalitions aligned against them. Saudi Arabia, with its modern air force and US-supplied munitions, failed to achieve decisive victory, and the perception within Houthi circles is that American power will be no more effective. Their propaganda machine amplifies every moment of defiance — a ship that reroutes, a drone that gets through, a Western strike that doesn’t dismantle their network — and translates it into a narrative of victory. To them, every surviving radar station is proof that the empire can bleed.
But the United States is not Saudi Arabia. The comparison reflects not just poor military judgment, but a profound misunderstanding of American strategic capacity and intent. Unlike regional actors, the US is not burdened by the political minefields of sectarian loyalties, tribal politics, or proximity. It can strike from the Mediterranean, the Gulf of Aden, or from submarines under the Red Sea. It does not need to occupy territory to destroy critical infrastructure. And when Washington decides that a threat must be neutralized, it tends to play a long game — using precision, partnerships, and pressure points until that threat is either dismantled or buried under economic and military consequences.
The Houthis lack the strategic depth to survive this kind of prolonged targeting. They are not a state with layered defenses, they are a militia with a territory — and that territory, while difficult to fully conquer, is not indestructible. Their command centers, storage depots, and drone assembly lines can only be relocated so many times. A concentrated American campaign, especially if paired with increased maritime interdiction and regional intelligence sharing, would gradually degrade the very tools that have made Houthi escalation possible. Their coastal control gives them influence over shipping routes, but also makes them highly visible. Their reliance on external supply chains — from Iran through smuggling routes and covert logistics — exposes them to disruption and surveillance. The longer they play this game, the more they risk pulling the US into a sustained campaign that their organization is not structurally prepared to endure.
Yet the illusion persists — and may even intensify. Faced with growing losses, the Houthis are likely to lean further into psychological warfare. Propaganda will surge. They will publish shaky videos of “downed” drones, stage missile launches, and portray every Western casualty, real or fabricated, as a blow against imperialism. Their goal is not battlefield victory but narrative control. If they can’t defeat the US militarily, they’ll try to erode its political will through a war of images, slogans, and social media virality. In doing so, they hope to sway anti-interventionist voices in the West and rally populist support across the Arab world.
Meanwhile, Iran will tighten its grip. The deeper the Houthis get, the more reliant they become on Tehran’s support — not just for weapons, but for expertise. We may see the quiet transfer of more sophisticated drone systems, longer-range missiles, and even the arrival of Iranian advisers on the ground to coordinate more complex attacks. Tehran has every interest in keeping US forces tied up in Yemen and distracted from other fronts like Syria or the Gulf. But that support will come at a cost: it will make the Houthis more vulnerable to becoming a direct target of Western-Iranian proxy escalation.
All of this is moving toward a dangerous inflection point. The Houthis are pushing the boundaries of what they can get away with — harassing ships in a key global chokepoint, attacking US assets, and daring the world’s most powerful navy to respond. Eventually, that response will escalate in ways they cannot control. A more aggressive US posture, especially in coordination with allies like the UK and France, could impose a maritime siege, take out port infrastructure, or even strike symbolic leadership targets. If the Houthis attempt to retaliate by mining the Bab el-Mandeb Strait or attacking Western vessels more directly, they may trigger a regional conflagration that leaves northern Yemen not as a “liberated” zone but a ruin.
This is why the illusion matters. The Houthis are not just overestimating their strength — they are gambling with the future of their movement and the lives of millions under their control. Their strategic calculus is shaped more by ideology and self-delusion than by sober assessments of military reality. The longer they cling to this fantasy of victory, the closer they come to waking up to its catastrophic consequences.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx
The post Why the Houthis Think They Can Beat the US — And Why They’re Wrong first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
New Poll: Majority of NYC Voters ‘Less Likely’ to Support Mamdani Over His Refusal to Condemn ‘Globalize the Intifada’
Zohran Mamdani. Photo: Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
In a warning sign for the campaign of Democratic nominee for mayor of New York Zohran Mamdani, a majority of city voters in a new poll say the candidate’s hardline anti-Israel stance makes them less likely to vote for him.
In the survey of likely city voters conducted by American Pulse, 52.5 percent said Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the slogan “globalize the intifada” coupled with his backing of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement made them less likely to vote for him in November. Just 31% of city voters polled were more likely to support him because of these positions.
At the same time, a significant share of young New York City voters support Mamdani’s anti-Israel positioning, a striking sign of shifting generational views on Israel and the Palestinian cause.
Nearly half of voters aged 18 to 44 (46 percent) said the State Assembly member’s backing for BDS and “refusal to condemn the phrase ‘globalize the intifada’” made them more likely to support him.
Mamdani, a democratic socialist from Queens, has been under fire for defending “globalize the intifada,” a slogan many Jewish groups associate with incitement to violence against Israel and Jews. While critics argue it glorifies terrorism, supporters claim it’s a call for international solidarity with oppressed peoples, especially Palestinians. Mamdani has also voiced support for BDS, a movement widely condemned by mainstream Jewish organizations as antisemitic for singling out Israel.
The generational divide exposed by the poll comes amid a broader political realignment. Younger progressives across the country are increasingly critical of Israeli policies, especially in the wake of the Gaza war, and more receptive to Palestinian activism. But to many Jewish leaders, Mamdani’s rising support is alarming.
Rabbi David Wolpe, visiting scholar at Harvard University, condemned the phrase with a sarcastic analogy.
“‘Globalize the intifada’ is just a political slogan,” he said. “Like ‘The cockroaches must be exterminated’ was just a housing authority slogan in Rwanda.”
Jewish organizations have reported a surge in antisemitic incidents in New York and across the U.S. since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war last fall. The blending of anti-Zionist slogans with calls for “intifada,” historically linked to violent uprisings, has deepened fears among Jewish communities that traditional red lines are being crossed.
Whether this emerging coalition reshapes New York politics remains to be seen. However, the poll indicates that among younger voters, views that were once considered fringe are quickly moving into the mainstream.
The post New Poll: Majority of NYC Voters ‘Less Likely’ to Support Mamdani Over His Refusal to Condemn ‘Globalize the Intifada’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Report: Jews Targeted at June’s Pride Month Events
A Jewish gay pride flag. Photo: Twitter.
The research division of the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) released a report on Wednesday detailing incidents of hate against Jews which took place last month during demonstrations in celebration of LGBTQ rights and identity.
Incidents reported by the group include:
- At a Pride march in Wales, the activists Cymru Queers for Palestine chose to block the path and show a sign that said “Profiting from genocide,” an attempt to link the event’s sponsors — such as Amazon — to the war in Gaza.
- A Dublin Pride march saw the participation of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which labeled Israel a “genocidal entity.”
- In Toronto at a late June Pride march, demonstrators again attacked organizers with a sign declaring, “Pride partners with genocide.”
CAM also identified a recurring narrative deployed against Israel by some far-left activists: so-called “pinkwashing,” a term which the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement calls “an Israeli government propaganda strategy that cynically exploits LGBTQIA+ rights to project a progressive image while concealing Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies oppressing Palestinians.”
The report notes that at a Washington DC Pride event in early June Medea Benjamin, cofounder of activist group Code Pink and a regular of anti-war protests, wore a pair of goofy, oversized sunglasses and a shirt in her signature pink with the phrase “you can’t pinkwash genocide.”
Other incidents CAM recorded showed the injection of anti-Israel sentiment into Pride events.
A musical group canceled a performance at an interfaith service in Brooklyn, claiming the hosting synagogue had a “public alignment with pro-Israel political positions.” In San Francisco before the yearly Trans March, a Palestine group said in its announcement of its participation, “Stop the war on Iran and the genocide of Palestine, stop the war on immigrants and attacks on trans people.”
CAM notes that this “queers for Palestine” sentiment is not new, pointing to a 2017 event wherein “organizers of the Chicago Dyke March infamously removed participants who were waving a Pride flag adorned with a Star of David on the grounds that the symbol ‘made people feel unsafe.’”
In February, the Israel Defense Forces shared with the New York Post documents it had recovered demonstrating that Hamas had tortured and executed members it suspected of homosexuality and other moral offenses in conflict with Islamist ideology.
Amit Benjamin, who is gay and a first sergeant major in the IDF, said during a visit to New York City for Pride month that “All the ‘queers for Gaza’ need to open their eyes. Hamas kills gays … kills lesbians … queers cannot exist in Gaza.”
The post Report: Jews Targeted at June’s Pride Month Events first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
IAEA pulls inspectors from Iran as standoff over access drags on
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi at the agency’s headquarters in Vienna, Austria, June 23, 2025. REUTERS/Elisabeth Mandl/File Photo
The UN nuclear watchdog said on Friday it had pulled its last remaining inspectors from Iran as a standoff over their return to the country’s nuclear facilities bombed by the United States and Israel deepens.
Israel launched its first military strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites in a 12-day war with the Islamic Republic three weeks ago. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors have not been able to inspect Iran’s facilities since then, even though IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said that is his top priority.
Iran’s parliament has now passed a law to suspend cooperation with the IAEA until the safety of its nuclear facilities can be guaranteed. While the IAEA says Iran has not yet formally informed it of any suspension, it is unclear when the agency’s inspectors will be able to return to Iran.
“An IAEA team of inspectors today safely departed from Iran to return to the Agency headquarters in Vienna, after staying in Tehran throughout the recent military conflict,” the IAEA said on X.
Diplomats said the number of IAEA inspectors in Iran was reduced to a handful after the June 13 start of the war. Some have also expressed concern about the inspectors’ safety since the end of the conflict, given fierce criticism of the agency by Iranian officials and Iranian media.
Iran has accused the agency of effectively paving the way for the bombings by issuing a damning report on May 31 that led to a resolution by the IAEA’s 35-nation Board of Governors declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations.
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said he stands by the report. He has denied it provided diplomatic cover for military action.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday Iran remained committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
“[Grossi] reiterated the crucial importance of the IAEA discussing with Iran modalities for resuming its indispensable monitoring and verification activities in Iran as soon as possible,” the IAEA said.
The US and Israeli military strikes either destroyed or badly damaged Iran’s three uranium enrichment sites. But it was less clear what has happened to much of Iran’s nine tonnes of enriched uranium, especially the more than 400 kg enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.
That is enough, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick. Iran says its aims are entirely peaceful, but Western powers say there is no civil justification for enriching to such a high level, and the IAEA says no country has done so without developing the atom bomb.
As a party to the NPT, Iran must account for its enriched uranium, which normally is closely monitored by the IAEA, the body that enforces the NPT and verifies countries’ declarations. But the bombing of Iran’s facilities has now muddied the waters.
“We cannot afford that … the inspection regime is interrupted,” Grossi told a press conference in Vienna last week.
The post IAEA pulls inspectors from Iran as standoff over access drags on first appeared on Algemeiner.com.