The United States Navy has carried out its most extensive wave of strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen since the 1991 campaign against Iraq, signaling a sharp escalation in Washington’s effort to protect commercial shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. The operation, coordinated with other U.S. forces, hit a broad array of launch sites, command hubs, and weapons depots used by the Iran-aligned group to threaten international trade routes.
The scale and tempo of the strikes mark a turning point in a confrontation that has steadily intensified since Houthi forces began targeting merchant vessels and naval ships, prompting the Biden administration to lean more heavily on air and missile power to deter further attacks. I see this as a test of whether precision firepower alone can meaningfully degrade a dispersed militant network without dragging the United States deeper into Yemen’s long-running war.
How the latest strikes unfolded and why they matter
The newest round of attacks involved U.S. Navy and supporting forces hitting multiple Houthi-controlled locations that American officials identified as critical to the group’s ability to launch drones and missiles into key shipping lanes. According to U.S. Central Command, the operation targeted several sites across Yemen that were assessed as posing an imminent threat to vessels in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, including facilities linked to anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles as well as unmanned aerial systems, with those details outlined in an official Central Command statement. The Pentagon has framed these strikes as defensive, arguing that they are designed to blunt specific attack capabilities rather than to open a new front in Yemen’s civil conflict.
Reporting from the region indicates that the strikes were among the most extensive single-night operations the United States has carried out against the Houthis, with multiple waves of munitions launched from warships and aircraft to hit dispersed targets. Coverage of the campaign has emphasized that this is the largest U.S. naval strike package since the Desert Storm era, a comparison that underscores both the volume of ordnance used and the breadth of the target set, as described in detailed regional reporting on the scale of the operation. I read that comparison less as a claim that Yemen is becoming another Iraq and more as a signal that Washington is prepared to accept higher operational risk to keep global shipping lanes open.
Houthi attacks at sea and the trigger for escalation
The decision to mount such a large strike package did not emerge in a vacuum, it followed a pattern of increasingly bold Houthi attacks on both commercial and military vessels. U.S. officials have pointed to incidents in which warships and merchant ships were targeted with anti-ship missiles and drones, including episodes where U.S. Navy destroyers intercepted incoming projectiles aimed at the Red Sea’s dense traffic corridors, a pattern documented in accounts of attacks on warships and shipping. Each interception may have prevented a disaster at sea, but cumulatively they convinced Washington that reactive missile defense alone was not enough.
In that context, the latest strikes look like an attempt to move from a posture of constant interception to one of preemptive disruption. U.S. commanders have argued that by hitting launch sites, storage depots, and command facilities, they can reduce the number of missiles and drones that ever make it into the air, a logic that aligns with earlier operations in which American forces hit Houthi radar and weapons sites after specific maritime attacks, as seen in prior retaliatory strikes on Houthi positions. I find that shift telling, because it shows the United States is no longer content to simply play defense along one of the world’s most important trade arteries.
Targets: from launchers to command-and-control hubs
The choice of targets in this latest wave reveals how U.S. planners are trying to dismantle the Houthi threat as a system rather than as a series of isolated launchers. Central Command has described hitting locations associated with anti-ship ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones, as well as the infrastructure that supports them, a pattern that mirrors earlier operations in which American forces struck what they identified as Houthi command-and-control nodes and weapons storage facilities, including a command and control facility in Yemen. By going after both the “trigger pullers” and the networks that direct them, the United States is trying to complicate the group’s ability to coordinate complex salvos against shipping.
Previous waves of strikes have already shown how broad that target set can be, with U.S. officials earlier detailing operations that hit 15 separate Houthi locations in a single night, including underground storage sites, missile systems, and drone facilities, as laid out in Pentagon briefings on strikes on 15 Houthi targets. The latest operation appears to follow that template at even greater scale, suggesting that Washington is less focused on symbolic retaliation and more intent on systematically eroding the group’s inventory and battlefield awareness. From my perspective, that approach acknowledges that the Houthis have evolved into a more sophisticated actor, one that relies on integrated sensors, communications, and stockpiles rather than just improvised launch pads.
Military strategy: deterrence, degradation, or drift toward a wider war?
Strategically, the United States is trying to walk a narrow line between deterrence and escalation. Officials have repeatedly said that the goal is to protect freedom of navigation and to convince the Houthis that continued attacks on shipping will carry a steep cost, a message that has been reinforced by successive waves of precision strikes on their military infrastructure, including earlier campaigns that targeted missile and drone sites across Yemen as described in analyses of U.S. strikes on Houthi positions. The latest, Desert Storm–scale operation is meant to amplify that message by demonstrating that Washington can reach deep into Houthi-controlled territory whenever it chooses.
Yet there is an inherent tension in trying to use air and naval power to coerce a non-state actor that has shown a high tolerance for punishment and a willingness to frame itself as a defender of regional causes. Military analysts have noted that while repeated strikes can degrade specific capabilities, they can also push the Houthis to adapt, dispersing their launchers, hardening their sites, and leaning more heavily on asymmetric tactics at sea, a dynamic that has been tracked in ongoing coverage of threat trends in the Red Sea. From where I sit, the risk is that the United States finds itself in a long-running cycle of strike and counterstrike that secures shipping lanes in the short term but gradually pulls American forces deeper into Yemen’s conflict ecosystem.
Operational tempo and the role of U.S. naval power
The operational tempo in and around the Red Sea has surged as U.S. warships, aircraft, and supporting assets maintain a near-constant presence to monitor and intercept threats. Navy destroyers and other vessels have been tasked with both defensive missions, such as shooting down incoming missiles and drones, and offensive roles, including launching cruise missiles at Houthi targets ashore, a dual mission set that has been visible in official footage and briefings on U.S. naval operations in the region. The latest large-scale strike package underscores how central sea-based platforms have become to Washington’s approach, allowing the United States to project power without relying heavily on regional land bases.
That reliance on naval assets also reflects a broader shift in how the United States manages crises along key maritime chokepoints. Rather than surging large ground formations, the Pentagon is leaning on carrier strike groups, destroyer squadrons, and long-range aircraft to respond quickly to emerging threats, a pattern that has been evident in the repeated use of Tomahawk and air-launched munitions against Houthi sites, as seen in previous strike footage released by U.S. forces. In my view, this approach plays to American strengths at sea, but it also places a heavy burden on crews who must sustain high alert levels for extended periods while operating in confined and heavily trafficked waters.
Regional and political fallout from the largest strikes since Desert Storm
The regional reaction to the latest strikes has been mixed, with some governments quietly welcoming a more forceful U.S. effort to secure trade routes and others warning that sustained bombing in Yemen could inflame public opinion and complicate diplomatic efforts to end the country’s civil war. Analysts have pointed out that the Houthis are likely to use the attacks to bolster their narrative of resistance, portraying themselves as standing up to Western intervention even as their military infrastructure absorbs significant damage, a pattern that has been noted in prior assessments of regional responses to U.S. actions. That narrative battle matters, because it shapes how easily outside powers can build coalitions to protect shipping without appearing to take sides in Yemen’s internal struggle.
In Washington, the strikes have sparked debate over both their effectiveness and their legal and political footing. Some lawmakers have pressed the administration to clarify the scope of its authority for repeated operations in Yemen and to explain how it will measure success, especially as the number of targets struck climbs into the dozens and beyond, echoing earlier scrutiny that followed multi-target operations like the one that hit 15 Houthi sites in a single night, as detailed in congressional-focused reporting. From my perspective, the core question is whether this largest strike since Desert Storm is a decisive inflection point or simply the most visible spike in a campaign that is likely to grind on as long as the Houthis see strategic value in threatening the Red Sea’s shipping lanes.
More from MorningOverview