President Donald Trump has significantly increased U.S. pressure on the Yemen-based Houthi rebels and their sponsors in Iran. But while Trump’s action is justified from a moral and strategic perspective, the president should follow his instinct to avoid an escalation that risks a full-scale regional war.

Since Saturday, the U.S. military has engaged in multiday air strikes on Houthi logistics, command, and combat units in Yemen. These attacks have been launched from the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Aden and from U.S. aerial drones based in the region. These strikes seek to deter the Houthis from continuing to target civilian and military vessels transiting the Red Sea.

Recommended Stories

• The inspectors general have a circle of unaccountability
• With no room for error, Mike Johnson shows how to herd the cats
• The blessings and bumbles of DOGE

A key global trade chokepoint, the Red Sea has seen sustained Houthi attacks since the start of Israel’s military response to the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas atrocities. Dozens of civilian vessels have been damaged, some very seriously. The Houthi campaign has led to significant delays and cost increases in the trade transport industry. It has also encouraged Iran’s belief that it could successfully sustain a closure of the Strait of Hormuz energy chokepoint in the event of a confrontation with the United States or Israel.

Trump is now attempting to repair what was a failed Biden administration response to the Houthi destabilization campaign. Former President Joe Biden’s backdoor diplomacy with Iran failed to persuade Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to cease Iran’s armament support for and encouragement of Houthi attacks. Limited U.S. and British air strikes against the Houthis caused only marginal damage to their capabilities while doing nothing to reduce their resolve.

It’s clear that Trump wants to alter this dynamic, and he’s right to do so. Still, the president should balance America’s interest in increasing punitive costs on the Houthis against the risks of an escalating Middle Eastern conflict.

The first consideration is that of military efficacy. While it would be ideal if the Houthis could be deterred or degraded into suspending their harassment of Red Sea shipping lanes, no U.S. military move short of a ground force action could likely accomplish this task. Houthi forces are adept at mitigating their vulnerability to U.S. targeting. They regularly move and cleverly conceal their weapons, munitions, and attack units. They avoid communications that could give their positions away and utilize western Yemen’s heavily mountainous terrain to mitigate U.S. detection and ensuing air strikes. The Houthis have also shown to be willing to incur significant casualties from sustained U.S. attacks. At the same time, there is rightly no U.S. appetite for a ground force action that would incur significant U.S. casualties and risk another sustained combat deployment.

Nor are U.S. military actions against the Houthis without cost. The head of the U.S. military’s Indo-Pacific Command, Adm. Sam Paparo, has warned that strikes on the Houthis are degrading stocks of weapons that would be critical in a future war with China. That matters because most U.S. military analysts believe China will attempt an invasion of Taiwan by 2030.

Last November, Paparo noted that “inherently, it imposes costs on the readiness of America to respond in the Indo-Pacific region.” This is concerning, he added, because that region “is the most stressing theater for the quantity and quality of munitions because [China] is the most capable potential adversary in the world.” Paparo called for an urgent procurement effort to build up munitions stocks, warning, “I’m a little more dissatisfied with the magazine depth. You know, it’s a time for straight talk.”

But these concerns are further exacerbated by the stretching of U.S. military deployments. Take the example of Navy warships such as the Truman strike group and Air Force bomber and fighter squadrons now deployed to the Middle East. When ships and planes are deployed on high-tempo operations in one place, they cannot simultaneously be deployed in another place. These deployments also worsen already highly problematic maintenance and repair backlogs.

Put simply, an escalating tit-for-tat war against the Houthis offers little chance of strategic victory alongside an increasing risk to U.S. military readiness for war with Communist China. Because of its ambitions for global hegemony in absolute contradiction to U.S. interests and its singular potential for achieving what would be catastrophic for U.S. hegemony, China must be the absolute priority for U.S. military planning and operations.

This concern extends to Trump’s thus far positive Iran policy of mixing diplomatic overtures with military ripostes.

U.S. deterrence of Iran failed under the Biden administration. Biden tolerated Iranian proxy attacks on U.S. forces and repeated Iranian assassination plots against top officials who served in the first Trump administration. Of greatest concern, Iran has more stockpiled enriched uranium and technical knowledge than ever before with which to break out a nuclear weapon. Yet, while specific acts of Iranian aggression should be confronted robustly, the limitation on U.S. military resources and China’s exigent threat mean significant escalation with Iran would be of far greater costs to U.S. interests than of benefit.

In turn, while Trump is right to warn Iran that it will face direct consequences for its continued support of the Houthis, these consequences should be carefully calibrated. Continued Iranian support for the Houthis should result in limited U.S. strikes against Iranian spy and logistics vessels and forces — and perhaps limited strikes on Iranian munitions depots inside Iran. However, sustained U.S. strikes on Iranian territory should be avoided at the risk of inviting a regional conflagration that risks U.S. lives, ties down the U.S. military, and thus undermines U.S. readiness for war with China.

It’s important to note that Iran is not the broken force that some pretend it to be. While Iran’s military threat has been degraded by recent Israeli actions, Khamenei has a large stockpile of missiles and drones with which he could cause havoc. Iranian proxy forces, including numerous terrorist groups, also have the ability to conduct terrorist attacks on U.S. interests — likely including on U.S. soil. A major conflict with Iran would, even in the best scenario, require a very heavy deployment of U.S. air and naval forces to the Middle East and the associated expenditure of the most valuable and finite munitions and capabilities. For these reasons, its increased energy costs aside, China would celebrate.

HOW TRUMP FEARS AND TRUSTS PUTIN TOO MUCH

Israeli concerns over Iran’s threat are clearly legitimate in their extreme sensitivity. For that reason, in the event that Iran breaks out toward a nuclear weapons capability, the U.S. should provide Israel with weapons capable of destroying or at least seriously degrading Iran’s nuclear program. Again, however, because of the overriding threat posed by China, it is not in the U.S. national interest to enjoin a direct confrontation with Iran. Too many American conservatives fail to realize this, arrogantly attempting to sabotage Trump’s appointment of defense officials who have the courage to prioritize China’s threat. They want strikes against Iran’s nuclear program now, other concerns be damned.

Trump has to choose what matters more to him. He can either seek to alter Iran and the Houthis’ strategic calculus fundamentally or accept actions designed to mitigate their threat. But if Trump chooses the former option, the U.S. may lose its deterrence credibility against China or, in the worst case, an actual war.