Further to this August post,
the latest at Foreign Policy’s “Situation Report”:
Strikes, but not war. The attempted missile attacks on American Navy ships in the Red Sea this week, and the Pentagon’s response — launching Tomahawk missiles at Houthi radar sites in Yemen — are a master class in how nations stumble into war. But Washington insists that it has no desire to become more deeply involved in the Saudi-led campaign to oust the Houthis from power. But it has to protect its ships.
Now Iran has sent two warships to the region, FP’s Paul McLeary reports, one of which trained its guns on a U.S. Navy helicopter in the same waterway last year. “The attack on the American ships also comes amid the backdrop of a Saudi airstrike on a funeral in Sanaa that killed 140 people, including several high-ranking Houthi officials, among them some well-known moderates who were attempting to set up negotiations between the Saudis and Houthis. The strike has led Washington to again assess its support for the air campaign, which includes refueling of Saudi and Emirati bombers, and some intelligence support.”
Which way out? As Washington looks for the exits in the Saudi-led war against the Houthis, an anonymous senior administration official tells the Washington Post that they’re putting the squeeze on the Saudis to accept an unconditional ceasefire and bring about an end to the conflict, which has caused an extensive humanitarian crisis in the country…
Plus (ring any Canadian bells?):
Is [US] selling tanks to Saudi Arabia such a good idea?
Exclusive: As Saudis bombed Yemen, U.S. worried about legal blowback