TEHRAN – Why has the United States not intervened militarily to try to stop the advance of the Yemeni Armed Forces and prevent them from establishing full control over the Bab al-Mandab Strait? 

This matter is being raised increasingly today amid media reports that the Saudi Crown Prince made two phone calls to U.S. President Donald Trump on the same day, asking him to intervene militarily to halt the advance of the Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF), but to no avail.

Setting aside Trump’s recent statements, in which he claimed that the Sanaa government had contacted him and asked him not to intervene, the U.S. decision not to interfere has other reasons, both direct and indirect.

Intervening to halt the advance of the YAF would require an air campaign with an unpredictable timeline. Otherwise, any limited strikes would be useless and would make any subsequent victory by Ansarallah appear even greater. It would amount to a double defeat for both the United States and Saudi Arabia.

But what is preventing the U.S from launching a broad air campaign to prevent the YAF from taking control of Bab al-Mandab?

It is no longer a secret that U.S. forces deployed near the Persian Gulf region are not in the best shape in terms of combat readiness. In addition to the frustration and low morale among troops serving aboard warships and aircraft carriers, the severe shortage of ammunition and missiles of various types and functions has left the U.S. military leadership facing two choices.

The first would be to open a new front against Ansarallah, exhausting what remains of its stocks of ammunition and missiles. That would leave the U.S. completely incapable of taking action should the confrontation with Iran escalate.

The second option would be to keep itself out of this conflict to preserve the minimum level of readiness among its forces, in anticipation of any developments in the illegal war with Iran. Washington had to weigh the priorities of its various fronts, and the Iranian front appears to be the most important.

So far, Washington has chosen the second option in dealing with the rapidly unfolding events in Yemen, particularly because this approach serves two immediate objectives.

The first goal is to prevent oil prices from rising even further above their current levels. Entering the war would, in practical terms, push Ansarallah to close the Bab al-Mandab Strait completely.

The second goal is punishing Riyadh for refusing direct military participation in the aggression on Iran, and for its later move to establish regional alliances aimed, over time, at dispensing with the American protection umbrella or reducing dependence on it. 

Punishing the world

Trump’s insistence on continuing Netanyahu’s war against Iran despite its military failure suggests that he is not trying to find a way out that would save face and spare him the label of “the defeated president.” 

There also appears to be a desire whose outlines have become increasingly clear: to punish the world that “let him down” in this unprovoked war against Iran and refused to help him. In Trump’s view, there is little harm in allowing oil prices to rise to levels that genuinely hurt national economies, particularly those that depend entirely on imports to meet their oil needs.

Anyone who has followed Trump’s behavior since taking office will recognize his tendency to “discipline” the world, which, in his view, exploits America, takes advantage of it, and depends on it. His policy of raising tariffs is a prime example.

Some argue that the U.S. itself will also be affected by higher global oil prices and rising inflation. That is true, but the impact on the U.S. is entirely different from that on other countries.

First, it is an oil-producing state, and it will have no problem providing the local market with the quantities it needs. Second, the U.S. exports to foreign markets. Under these high prices, its revenues will increase greatly, since it has raised its export volume since the beginning of the aggression on Iran, to strengthen its control over its traditional markets and enter new ones.

Its only problem here is the rise in prices of petroleum derivatives available to American consumers, particularly gasoline, and the possibility that this could fuel domestic anger that translates into the results of the midterm elections.

But Trump appears to have recently decided to free himself from this problem, or, more accurately, to evade it, by making promises to American voters, insisting that oil prices will fall after the midterm elections. He has also offered an attractive proposal under which every American adult would receive $5,000 to spend on American-made products if Republicans win the midterms.

According to American news outlets, there is skepticism in the U.S. toward Trump’s statement, though not in the form of a direct political consensus against him.

The market does not treat Trump’s promise as a reliable economic forecast. Instead, it looks at actual supply and geopolitical risks, according to the Financial Times. Other outlets, meanwhile, consider the official forecasts for diesel prices inconsistent with the rapid decline suggested by Trump.

Regardless of what American voters think of the U.S. president’s recent remarks, a sentiment that has not yet been reflected in any opinion polls, what is Trump counting on after the elections? More specifically, what does he expect will bring global and domestic oil prices down?

There are only two possibilities.

Either he resumes the illegal war against Iran and uses force to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers. That, however, seems unlikely for several reasons that have become clear to observers around the world following developments over the past several months.

Some of these reasons stem from Tehran’s firm position and its determination to protect Iranian sovereignty and independence. Others relate to Trump’s political, economic, and military ability to launch another illegal war, one that would be no more successful than those that came before it.

The second possibility is that the Strait of Hormuz is reopened under a lasting agreement that ends the state of war and paves the way for a new era of peace in the region.

Given the Iranian negotiating team’s steadfast position and its refusal to submit to American demands, such an agreement, despite its importance to the region and the world, would in practical terms amount to an admission of defeat for Trump and his administration, even if it were never acknowledged publicly.