TEHRAN – About 20 days into one of the most expensive overseas operations under President Donald Trump’s second term, U.S. military strikes in Yemen have yielded little to no strategic success.

Despite an estimated $1 billion in expenditure, Ansarullah remain operational, active, and increasingly emboldened. Far from being crippled, the group continues its campaign of maritime operations in the Red Sea, defying the world’s most advanced military machine and exposing a glaring failure in American strategic planning.

When President Trump took office again in January 2025, one of his first foreign policy moves was to take action against the rising threat from the Ansarullah movement in the Red Sea. Following a series of attacks in support of the oppressed people of Palestine on commercial vessels linked to Israel, the White House approved a strong airstrike campaign.

Under the pretext of “restoring freedom of navigation,” the administration launched hundreds of airstrikes across northern and western Yemen, which were carried out with high-precision munitions

A billion dollars down the drain

However, the choice to prioritize military action over diplomatic engagement, regional coalition-building, or addressing the Israeli war in Gaza as the cause of instability in the West Asia region has proven to be not only strategically weak but also financially reckless.

Defense analysts estimate that the cost of the military operation has surpassed $1 billion. All for a campaign that has delivered almost no measurable degradation in Ansarullah's capacity.

In fact, CENTCOM has reported the elimination of “dozens of the movement targets,” but independent observers say these claims are unverifiable and likely exaggerated. Notably, Yemen has resumed strikes on shipping lanes days after each reported U.S. "success."

Ansarullah responds with strategic messaging in the face of US bombs

While Washington has measured its Yemen campaign in dollars, drones, and air sorties, Yemen’s Ansarullah movement has responded with a distinctly different strategy.

Far from cowering under the weight of a billion-dollar American offensive, the movement’s leadership has seized the moment to fortify their political legitimacy and boost morale at home and abroad.

Shortly after the first wave of American strikes in early January 2025, Mohammed Abdul Salam, Ansarullah’s senior spokesperson and chief negotiator, issued a pointed statement via Al-Masirah TV and on his official Telegram channel that said:

“The American and British aggressors think that by bombing our territory, they can silence our voice or break our will. They are mistaken. Every missile they launch only strengthens our determination. Our operations in the Red Sea will continue until the aggression on the people of Gaza ends, and until the siege on our nation is lifted. This is not just a military confrontation—it is a confrontation of justice against tyranny.”

Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, the movement’s leader, addressed the public on February 29, 2025. He called the U.S. campaign “proof of their desperation”.

“They bomb us from the sky because they cannot face us on the ground. They hide behind satellites and jets because they fear the will of our people. America’s aggression is not a show of strength—it is a sign of weakness. We did not ask for war. We defend our waters, our skies, and our dignity,” Al-Houthi stated.

In mid-March, al-Houthi also said the resistance fighters would target U.S. ships in the Red Sea as long as the U.S. continues attacks on Yemen.

“If they continue their aggression, we will continue the escalation,” he said in a televised speech immediately after the first round of attacks were launched on Yemen under Trump’s presidency.

The Ansarullah movement’s political bureau also described the U.S. attacks as a “war crime.” 

Ansarullah's media outlets have circulated footage of drone launches, military parades, and intercepted American munitions, seeking to present an image of strength despite the overwhelming firepower deployed against them. In their coverage, American strikes are portrayed as “cowardly”.

Moreover, Ansarullah officials stated that the attacks have backfired by uniting the population behind the movement. 

Ansarullah has also strategically used international law and sovereignty discourse to frame U.S. actions as violations of Yemeni self-determination. In a March 2025 communiqué sent to the United Nations,

Yemen described the strikes as “unprovoked violations of Yemen’s national airspace,” and called on the UN Security Council to investigate “American war crimes.”

These calculated statements, far from being random outbursts, form part of a sophisticated campaign that combines moral high ground, military resilience, and anti-imperialist messaging.

Strategic failure due to ignoring political realities

What the Trump administration underestimated or ignored is the decentralized nature of the Ansarullah military command. Many of the movement’s missile units operate in mountainous terrain, often underground, and with support from local tribal networks. Their ability to adapt quickly and avoid detection has made them a nightmare for a conventional military relying heavily on aerial surveillance and airpower.

The air campaign has allowed Yemen to boost domestic support and further entrenching their control.

The result was a campaign without direction, a budget without oversight, and a strategy without an endgame.

Trump’s Yemen strategy has also aggravated tensions across West Asia. Instead of isolating Yemen, the campaign has energized anti-American sentiment, especially in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

On the international stage, America's traditional allies in Europe have voiced cautious support for maritime security while expressing concern over the rising toll on civilians and the ongoing humanitarian crisis. France and Germany have called for “political solutions and a return to the negotiating table”—a stance that highlights a clear divergence from Washington’s predominantly military approach.

Domestically, Trump’s Yemen policy has attracted rare bipartisan criticism. Lawmakers from both parties have demanded clarity on the operation’s objectives, rules of engagement, and exit strategy.
Senator Chris Murphy described the campaign as “an endless operation with no measurable goals.” On the Republican side, Senator Rand Paul questioned the wisdom of spending billions abroad while Americans face economic uncertainty at home.

Public opinion polls also suggest waning support. A recent Gallup survey found that only 27% of Americans approve of the airstrikes, while 62% believe the funds could be better used on domestic issues, like healthcare, infrastructure, or education.

Yemen’s civilian population pays the price

The U.S. military insists its strikes are “surgical” and “targeted,” but humanitarian organizations tell a different story.

According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, several strikes have resulted in civilian casualties. Medical facilities, schools, and residential buildings have been damaged or destroyed in provinces such as Sa’dah, Hodeidah, and Sana’a.

The human cost is devastating:

- Over 250 civilian casualties directly linked to airstrikes since January 2025. 

- Thousands displaced, many for the second or third time since the war began in 2015. 

 - Access to aid compromised, as bombings near key supply routes delay food, water, and medicine deliveries. 

Enormous costs, minimal gains

The past decades, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya have demonstrated that military interventions, in the absence of accompanying political, economic, and social strategies, not only fail to resolve conflicts but often generate new layers of complexity.

In Yemen, it appears that U.S. military operations have not weakened the Ansarullah movement; rather, they have pushed the group toward guerrilla tactics and further entrenched their positions in the country’s mountainous regions. Moreover, the psychological and social impact of these attacks on Yemeni civilians is likely to fuel the rise of a new generation of dissenters and resisters, an outcome that could evolve into broader threats for US and its allies in the region.

The Trump administration’s handling of Yemen has become a case study in strategic failure: a high-stakes military endeavor launched with confidence, continued in arrogance, and destined to end in regret.

The United States must redirect its focus toward diplomacy, reconstruction, and conflict resolution if it truly wishes to secure the Red Sea.

Otherwise, the next billion dollars may buy nothing more than another chapter in America’s long history of unwinnable wars.