Iran’s strongest remaining proxy, Yemen’s Houthis, are doing more than threatening international shipping through the strategic Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
They are exposing an uncomfortable reality: Saudi Arabia, despite spending hundreds of billions on defense, remains dangerously vulnerable to an Iranian-backed militia.
The Houthis, radical Shi’ites whose revolutionary zeal mirrors the uncompromising jihadism of Sunni ISIS, harbor ambitions extending beyond Yemen to challenging the Saudi monarchy and seizing Mecca and Medina, Islam’s two holiest sites.
Their attacks on Saudi energy infrastructure, military installations, tankers, and Riyadh’s international airport expose the kingdom’s vulnerability. Threats to its East-West pipeline, a critical alternative to the Iranian-threatened Strait of Hormuz, further underscore the strategic danger.
The question Washington must ask is simple: Why should America continue defending wealthy Gulf allies unwilling or unable to defend themselves?
The Mecca defense pact: An alliance on paper?
The answer should begin with the recently signed Mecca Joint Defense Agreement between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan.
The agreement declares that an armed attack against one member constitutes an attack against all three.
Yet the Houthi attacks raise a fundamental question: Will this new Muslim defense alliance ever confront an Iranian proxy, or is collective security merely diplomatic theater?
If Turkey and nuclear-armed Pakistan brought their formidable military capabilities to bear alongside Saudi Arabia, the strategic calculations in Yemen and Tehran could change dramatically.
A credible multinational military response might persuade the Houthis that continued attacks carry unacceptable costs, while weakening Iran’s bargaining position with Washington.
Unlike Hezbollah, which operates within Iran’s doctrine of velayat-e faqih (guardianship of the Islamic jurist), the Houthis retain considerable operational independence.
Tehran influences their decisions but does not necessarily dictate every action. That distinction creates opportunities for deterrence and negotiation.
US President Donald Trump believes he has a productive relationship with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and has repeatedly praised Pakistan’s role in facilitating negotiations with Iran.
Now is the time to test those relationships.
Washington should press Ankara and Islamabad to translate their defense commitments into meaningful military cooperation with Riyadh.
Turkey’s possession of Russia’s S-400 air-defense system already raises serious questions about its reliability as a NATO ally. Pakistan, meanwhile, remains a nuclear-armed state whose Islamist currents and strategic interests frequently diverge from Washington’s.
If these countries refuse meaningful assistance, America should reassess how much strategic confidence it places in either.
The Saudi-UAE-Israeli alternative
There is another option, potentially more effective: Saudi Arabia should reconcile with the United Arab Emirates and cooperate militarily with Israel against their common Houthi adversary, under pressure from Trump.
The rivalry between Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) and UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed has complicated regional coordination.
Yet both governments have compelling interests in preventing the Houthis from dominating Yemen and threatening international commerce.
Israel brings intelligence capabilities, operational experience, and demonstrated military effectiveness against Iranian-backed forces.
A coordinated Saudi-Emirati-Israeli strategy, supported by American intelligence and logistics, could significantly strengthen deterrence without requiring another large-scale American commitment.
Trump should make clear to MBS that deeper American security commitments cannot substitute for regional cooperation with the UAE and Israel.
Why should American forces assume risks that regional powers refuse to share?
Unfortunately, Washington helped create this predicament. Some of America’s difficulties are self-inflicted.
In 2021, Joe Biden’s administration ended American support for Saudi-led offensive operations in Yemen and revoked the Houthis’ terrorist designations, citing humanitarian concerns.
Those concerns were legitimate. But the policy also raised questions about whether Washington was underestimating the Houthis’ military ambitions.
This is an organization whose notorious slogan is: “God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse be upon the Jews, Victory to Islam.”
The US should never believe humanitarian restraint will be reciprocated in the Middle East. In the region, it is viewed as weakness and an invitation to attack.
Iran today is weaker than most Americans believe, but it is not defeated
America’s approaching midterm elections have made sober, nonpartisan strategic analysis increasingly difficult.
After eight months of war, Iran’s military capabilities have been substantially degraded, its economy is under extraordinary pressure, and its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, have suffered devastating losses.
Yet the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps remains the regime’s dominant power center. Iran’s nuclear ambitions, ballistic missile capabilities, and surviving proxies remain unresolved.
Washington has also declined to fully exploit another potential source of pressure: Iran’s deeply disaffected population.
Persians, Kurds, Azeris, Baluchis, Lurs, Arabs, and other communities include millions who reject the Islamic Republic.
Supporting their access to communications, civil organization, strike funds, and arms would enable them to challenge authoritarian rule and increase pressure on Tehran without committing American ground forces.
The objective should be to convince the IRGC that continued confrontation threatens the regime’s survival more than a verifiable agreement limiting its nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and support for terrorism.
Trump still has strategic options.
By pressing Turkey and Pakistan to honor their commitments, encouraging Saudi-UAE-Israeli cooperation, and preserving Israel’s freedom to degrade Iranian proxies, Washington could further weaken Tehran’s leverage.
But the lesson is larger than Yemen: America cannot indefinitely defend Middle Eastern allies who refuse to act collectively against threats to their own survival.
That is the ultimate test for regional security, and whether Trump can turn his Middle East strategic ambitions into lasting achievements.
The writer is the director of MEPIN, the Middle East Political Information Network, and the senior security editor of The Jerusalem Report. He regularly briefs members of Congress and their foreign policy staffers, and the State Department.