The Zionist assassinations of Yemen’s Prime Minister Ahmad Ghalib al-Rahwi and his cabinet members were no aberration. It fits neatly within the trajectory that Sanaa has chosen for itself: one of direct confrontation with the foundations of the western-imposed security order in West Asia, an order primarily built around protecting Israel.
Following the targeted killings on 28 August, which included at least 11 other ministers, thousands of Yemenis flocked to the capital’s Al‑Shaab Mosque (formerly named Al-Saleh Mosque) for a funeral that became a vow of defiance. Mahdi al‑Mashat, now heading the Supreme Political Council (SPC), declared, “Our revenge does not sleep, and dark days await you for what the hands of your filthy, treacherous government have wrought,” condemning the attack as a betrayal of red lines, and promising military escalation.
As Rahwi’s deputy, now de facto Prime Minister Mohammed Miftah, told mourners:
“We are facing the strongest intelligence empire in the world, the one that targeted the government – the whole Zionist entity (comprising) the US administration, the Zionist entity, the Zionist Arabs and the spies inside Yemen.”
Nearly two years into Israel’s war on Gaza, Yemen has forced its way into the heart of the regional confrontation as a central actor.
From within the constraints of the blockade, it has developed a powerful model of asymmetric maritime and missile deterrence. Sanaa has become a geopolitical chokepoint, recalibrating power balances in the Red Sea and Arabian Sea.
The rise of Yemen is not measured by the number of strikes or vessels targeted, but by its growing ability to dictate regional rules of engagement – something western powers backing Israel have failed to prevent.
From day one of the war on Gaza, the Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) declared that their naval campaign would be tied to the fate of the besieged Palestinian enclave. This stance – far more political than tactical – allowed Sanaa to surface, for the first time in modern history, as a visible and consequential military power in the region.
Missile breakthroughs, maritime escalations
On 22 August 2025, the YAF fired a missile at Ben Gurion Airport that Israeli air force investigators later said carried a cluster warhead, marking the first confirmed use of such a payload by Yemen against the occupation state.
Cluster warheads fragment mid-air into multiple bomblets, covering a wide radius. This makes them particularly effective against airports, logistics hubs, and dispersed air defense systems. For Tel Aviv, such munitions are harder to intercept; even if the Iron Dome neutralizes the main projectile, it may fail to stop all submunitions from striking.
By introducing this capability, Sanaa signaled that its missile doctrine has evolved beyond deterrence. It can now disable air bases and ports outright. The threat to the occupation state is no longer confined to projectile quantity, but includes quality, accuracy, and penetration capacity.
Yemen’s adoption of this technology carries consequences that reach well beyond Tel Aviv. It strikes at the core of the US-led security structure in West Asia, exposing its vulnerabilities and redrawing the limits of deterrence.
The targeted assassinations in Sanaa were not designed to halt missile development – an impossible task – but to decapitate decision-making. But if missiles form one axis of confrontation, Yemen’s assertive naval policy forms the other: Today, the sinking of vessels that violate Sanaa’s blockade on Israeli-bound cargo represents a direct challenge to western maritime dominance.
On 7 July, the YAF announced the targeting of the Liberian-flagged commercial ship Magna CZ (also known as Magic Seas) off Yemen’s southwest coast. Within 72 hours, they executed a second operation that sank the Eternity C as it headed for Israel’s port of Umm al-Rashrash (“Eilat”). Yemen’s military media released high-resolution footage of both strikes – proof of planning, precision, and operational confidence.
Ansarallah leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi said the strikes, on vessels defying Yemen’s navigation ban on Israeli trade, led to the renewed closure of Umm al-Rashrash port. He called it a deterrent signal to companies seeking to undermine Yemen’s maritime embargo.
Sources in Sanaa confirm to The Cradle that Israel had attempted to bypass the blockade by covertly coordinating with western shipping firms to continue resupplying the bankrupt port. The twin attacks were designed to end that effort – and succeeded.
The strikes, carried out days after the short war between Iran and Israel, also showcased Yemen’s growing ability to conduct complex naval warfare. The YAF reportedly employed a mix of missiles, drones, boats, and mines in the operations, which served not only to enforce Sanaa’s blockade but to warn outside actors, including the US, that any attack on Yemen could meet a maritime response.
Western impotence and Yemeni innovation
In a March analysis, the Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI) think tank argued that Ansarallah had used the Gaza war to cement a two-tiered deterrent: moral-ideological and regional-strategic. Yemen, it noted, had discovered a new form of naval power, one it is unlikely to abandon.
The targeting of ships was never just symbolic support for Gaza. It was a bid to alter global trade flows through the Red Sea. Likewise, Yemen’s missile advances were not reactive, but designed to challenge Israeli and American air defense systems.
The west, despite its overwhelming naval and aerial superiority, has failed to neutralize these threats. US-led missions in the Red Sea amount to little more than posturing, with no real strategic effect.
Yemen’s power does not stem from vast stockpiles or high-end tech. It rests on a layered formula: local ingenuity, tactical pragmatism, and coordination with resistance allies. Drones, cruise missiles, and maritime geography have enabled Sanaa to impose strategic costs without direct war. This is hybrid deterrence in action – redrawing engagement rules without waiting for global recognition.
Now that Washington’s military operations have paused, western reactions to Yemeni strikes are fragmented and cautious. The US offers warnings. The UK issues symbolic gestures. Yet neither can wage a sustained air, sea, and land war under current regional conditions.
Tel Aviv, for its part, continues to bomb the same ports with no lasting impact. Even threats and executions of high-profile assassinations failed to diminish the threat – if anything, they have raised the stakes.
Redefining sovereignty, redrawing security
Yemen’s operations reflect a doctrine in which deterrence includes preemptive action and symbolic control of adversarial infrastructure. A noticeable shift is also evident in the strategic mindset of Yemen’s military leadership.
These operations came at a critical time, amid signs that Washington is preparing a multi-front escalation, including inside Yemen itself. The recent ship strikes served a dual function: reinforcing Sanaa’s blockade and delivering a preemptive warning.
According to a July report from the Stimson Center, US airstrikes “fell short of degrading the Houthis’ military capabilities and strengthened their domestic and regional propaganda.” The report notes that Sanaa has consolidated its power and image as the principal force resisting US and Israeli intervention, with the Red Sea increasingly shaped by actors outside traditional US-led frameworks.
A separate June analysis by ACLED, titled ‘A Red Sea Hall of Mirrors,’ observed that the contradictory US messaging on Red Sea security reveals a deeper shift as Sanaa’s control is now tangible, while western responses remain limited and insufficient:
“The Houthis have redefined asymmetric warfare in the region … their true success lies not just in their arsenal but in their strategic prowess in wielding media narratives.”
Together, these findings suggest that by July, Sanaa had entrenched its maritime dominance through drones, naval missiles, and mines, backed by the political will to disrupt and control shipping lanes.
Yemeni military officials say the country is in a “strong strategic position” – that it has stockpiled drones and missiles, introduced new systems, and upgraded air defenses, which have proven effective against both US and Israeli strikes. Each conflict strengthens its capabilities and sharpens its tactics. If anything, the region’s open-ended war environment seems to have become a testing ground for Sanaa’s military evolution.
Meanwhile, the US continues to seek escalation, this time through economic warfare. Since the start of Yemen’s support for Gaza, Washington has promised escalation and launched two failed wars. Now, it leans on sanctions, port strikes, and UN-backed efforts to worsen the humanitarian crisis.
Sources in Sanaa inform The Cradle that these moves are being closely tracked and may soon trigger military retaliation. Some Yemeni officials suggest that, if escalation persists, economic aggression will be treated as war – and met with direct naval strikes against western interests.
A new security doctrine in West Asia
The definition of security in West Asia is no longer dictated by Atlanticist powers. It is being redefined by regional actors wielding indigenous tools, despite siege and war. The era of uncontested control over trade routes and unilateral decisions on war is coming to an end.
Sanaa is not merely a wartime participant. It is actively scripting a new framework for security, sovereignty, and deterrence. With each Yemeni naval operation, the myth of western supremacy erodes, and a new regional-led security architecture takes shape.
Yemen was never meant to be a power broker. Yet in less than two years, it has redrawn the regional map from the Red Sea, asserting itself as a tactical maritime force with strategic reach. This reflects a fundamental shift in how Yemen views itself, no longer as a fragmented, impoverished state, but as a decisive actor in shaping global power relations.
Yemen does not threaten regional security, but redefines it, firmly grounded in the interests of West Asia’s peoples. Sanaa has gone beyond Gaza, not only defending the enclave, but opening geographic and strategic space for a region-first security model that rejects western-imposed frameworks.
source: The Cradle