Author: Daniel Larison

The phenomenally stupid idea of attacking the Houthis is getting more support:

Saudi Arabia is among a number of Middle Eastern countries telling the West they back strikes against the Houthis in Yemen whose attacks on shipping in the Red Sea have diminished commercial traffic in the vital waterway.

If this report is true, this is just evidence that the Saudi government is back to its old reckless tricks. One might have thought that almost nine years of failed intervention in Yemen would have been enough to sour Riyadh on more military action there, but it seems that the crown prince and his advisers refuse to learn anything. U.S. attacks on Yemen will be dangerous not only for American interests, but they will also backfire on other U.S. clients in the region, especially if they are seen as supporting the attacks.

Continue reading “Don’t Intervene in Yemen”

It’s January in an election year, so it must be time for the U.S. to assassinate someone in Baghdad:

A U.S. Special Operations drone strike in Baghdad on Thursday killed a senior figure in an Iran-linked militant group that is part of Iraq’s security apparatus, drawing sharp criticism from the Iraqi government, as well as allied groups.

It is absurd that the U.S. is still engaged in hostilities in Iraq almost 33 years after the end of Desert Storm. There are few better examples of the stupidity and futility of our government’s Middle Eastern policies than the tit-for-tat strikes between U.S. forces and Iraqi militias that answer to a government that our military is supposedly there to support. The U.S. is routinely committing acts of war against the security forces of a government that is considered a partner of the United States, and it does so over the vehement objections of the government that is compelled to host our troops. As if this weren’t already bad enough, this also makes conflict with Iran more likely.

Continue reading “Another Pointless Assassination in Baghdad”

Jeffrey Friedman wrote a somewhat interesting essay on how voters judge hawkish posturing from political leaders, but this section is nonsense:

Trump’s decision to assassinate Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in January 2020 provides a good example of how it is hard to evaluate a policy’s wisdom [bold mine-DL] – but simple to spot resolve. After Trump ordered the strike, many observers accused him of recklessly risking war with Tehran. Others said that the United States should have targeted Soleimani long ago and that the strike would help deter Iran from challenging the United States in the future. Even in retrospect, it is difficult to determine whether Trump’s decision reflected good judgment [bold mine-DL]. Iran’s retaliation for the Soleimani strike was less severe than many people predicted. It is thus possible that Trump carefully analyzed the situation [bold mine-DL] and accurately understood that his choice to kill Soleimani was not as dangerous as critics claimed. But it is also possible that Trump had no idea how Tehran would react and nonetheless opted to roll the dice without good reason – and happily lucked out.

There are few Trump decisions that have been been easier to judge as reckless and unnecessary than the decision to kill Soleimani. By all accounts, Trump ordered the assassination because it was the most aggressive option he was given, and because he was responding to pressure from Senate Republicans whose support he needed at his first impeachment trial. That is based on numerous reports that came out at the time and in the subsequent weeks and months. Alice Friend, Mara Karlin and Loren DeJonge Schulman wrote about the decision a couple weeks after it happened:

According to multiple news reports, policymakers gave Trump the option of killing Qasem Soleimani as one of several choices, perhaps hoping that including such a dramatic measure would push him toward a middle course; instead, he went for it, reportedly with little forethought or preparation [bold mine-DL].

Read the rest of the article at Eunomia

Daniel Larison is a contributing editor for Antiwar.com and maintains his own site at Eunomia. He is former senior editor at The American Conservative. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, World Politics Review, Politico Magazine, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter.

The UK Times reports on worsening famine conditions in Gaza. Those in northern Gaza are at greatest risk:

Barely any aid has reached the people in the north of Gaza, who are separated from the rest of the population by the fighting. Phone signals are cut off and large swathes of Gaza City, with its once-bustling beachfront restaurants, are destroyed.

No one knows how many people remain in the north, but charities estimate that it could be in the hundreds of thousands. They have nothing.

Continue reading “Famine Is Devouring the People of Gaza”

Steven Cook wants to have a new war with Yemen:

As a result, if the United States wants to protect freedom of navigation in the Red Sea and its environs, it is going to have to take the fight directly to the Houthis.

Escalation against the Houthis is a phenomenally stupid idea. For one thing, turning a nuisance into a full-blown war will not secure shipping through the Red Sea. It will interrupt commercial shipping even more. If shipping companies are nervous about being shot at with drones and missiles now, they will absolutely refuse to send their ships through an active war zone. The problem that the military action is ostensibly meant to solve will become ten times worse.

In addition to the direct risks to U.S. ships and personnel that escalation would involve, “taking the fight” to the Houthis would be a waste of limited military resources at a time when the U.S. is already overstretched. Escalating against the Houthis could lead to their resumption of attacks on Saudi and Emirati territory and a breakdown of the truce in Yemen that has largely held for the better part of two years. The Houthis might respond to U.S. attacks by striking at energy infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, and they have already demonstrated that they can do considerable damage to Saudi oil installations in the past.

Read the rest of the article at Eunomia

Daniel Larison is a contributing editor for Antiwar.com and maintains his own site at Eunomia. He is former senior editor at The American Conservative. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, World Politics Review, Politico Magazine, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter.

The Associated Press reports that dozens more civilians were killed in last night’s airstrikes in northern Gaza:

“It was another night of killing and massacres,” said Saeed Moustafa, a resident of the Nuseirat camp. He said people were still crying out from the rubble of a house hit by an airstrike on Wednesday.

“We are unable to get them out. We hear their screams but we don’t have equipment,” he said.

Continue reading “‘Another Night of Killing and Massacres’ in Gaza”