US gamble against Houthis and Iran raises questions over Trump's China strategy

Donald Trump’s escalated campaign against the Houthis in Yemen, who have revived their Red Sea blockade in protest at Israel’s war in Gaza, could soon face difficult trade offs.

The US President has promised to “annihilate” the “barbarian” group and there have been at least 30 US air strikes against them since Saturday, as well as threats to hold Iran directly responsible for Houthi attacks.

The campaign however, is not the top defence priority for the US.

In January, Mr Trump’s defence secretary Pete Hegseth articulated a long-term goal of Washington, held since the Obama presidency. Mr Hegseth said a key aim was to “deter aggression in the Indo-Pacific by communist China”.

This means an ambitious boost to US arms inventories and naval capability for war with a “near peer” – Beijing’s vast armed forces – rather than a militia force like the Houthis or a country such as Iran.

Rearming America

The US arms build-up is happening – factories are being built or expanded, with a focus on stealthy, long-range cruise missiles, in some cases enabled by AI, including ways of cutting costs while maintaining capability.

Old weapons like the Tomahawk missile are being upgraded for naval warfare and new systems focus on building what is known as “mass” or sheer numbers in war.

The Ships Act, meanwhile, seeks to vastly expand US military and commercial ship construction, partly to compete with China’s massive naval build-up.

Many new systems are designed with a focus on fighting across the vast expanse of the Pacific, what US commanders call the “tyranny of distance”. Focus includes anti-ship missiles, which have no use against the Houthis, although they would be important in a war with Iran. Production of air defence interceptors, too, is stepping up.

But many experts warn that the US may not have enough new capability ready in time for a crisis with China. This could make any new entanglement in the Middle East unwelcome, especially one involving Iran. The reason is the astonishing projected defence requirements the US believes it would need to confront China.

Estimates vary as to how much military material the US would need for a Pacific crisis.

US military Pacific command "is concerned about the expenditure of weapons”, says Salvatore Mercogliano, a maritime historian at Campbell University in North Carolina.

“They are also worried about the diversion of ships there and pulling assets. However, not having a secure sea lane through the Red Sea would also have an impact on supporting an operation in the western Pacific. The Houthis (and by that I mean Iran) could shut down the strait if they wanted to with the one weapon not yet used – mines.”

In a full-scale Pacific war focused on Taiwan, the US would expect to fire more than 30,000 precision munitions, a similar number to the total bombs and missiles fired in the 2003 Iraq invasion, according to analysis by Tyler Hacker, a researcher at the US Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

For context, one projection for the advanced Joint Air to Surface Standoff missile inventory by 2026 was 3,600 missiles. The US might have about 4,000 older Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles – exact stockpiles are classified – and is upgrading many of these weapons for an anti-ship role, again less relevant for Middle East clashes. Precision-guided bomb kits called JDAMs are in better shape, with capacity to make tens of thousands a year, but this would be a short-range weapon in a war with China.

Running out of missiles?

Recent US war-games suggest the US might expend 5,000 cruise missiles of various types in the first month of a Pacific war, implying a sustained conflict would empty American arsenals.

This is not the only challenge. Houthi missile attacks on US ships and Washington’s ally Israel might not be particularly effective but would still require expensive interceptor missiles to fend off. In a war with China, the US would need many thousands of these missiles to protect critical bases, such as Guam, and allies like Japan. Washington is struggling to increase production of ballistic missile defences.

Experts say that in the short term, the US Navy could sustain a significant campaign against the Iran-backed movement, including using extremely long-range strikes by the US Air Force and ally Britain, after launching more than 200 strikes on the Houthis in the first part of the campaign, causing a dip in attacks in the Red Sea, but failing to restore the confidence of shipping companies using the route.

A long campaign against the Houthis, however, could drain costly missile air defence inventories, based on the first crisis from November 2023 onwards, when the US deployed warships to the Red Sea, to the end of the first Houthi campaign in January. The US fired 155 Standard Missiles and numerous other air defence weapons, at a cost of nearly $2 billion.

Experts previously told The National this would not be a huge short-term problem because stockpiles built up over the years number in the thousands. But the longer a war drags on – especially if Iran becomes directly involved – the more stockpiles are drained.

Freedom of the seas

“I don't think the US strikes are meant to deter the Houthis,” Mr Mercogliano says. "Their goal appears to be twofold. One, to leverage the Iranians to pull their support. President Trump has leverage with OFAC [Office of Foreign Assets Control] sanctions against Iranian tankers, which can be ended. Second, it is to convince the insurance companies to lower the war risk insurance for ships to resume their voyages. This is what is keeping ships from sailing through the Red Sea."

Mr Mercogliano adds: “President Trump just had the owner of [French shipping giant] CMA CGM at the White House, who is talking about flagging 20 ships into the US registry. Mediterranean Shipping Company is also working with BlackRock to buy CK Hutchinson ports. So these strikes appear to me to be more commercial in objective than military.”

For now, Washington can continue naval operations despite fears of some US commanders that the navy is seriously overstretched. The navy, one officer wrote in analysis for the US Naval Institute, is torn between “commitments to allies, training certifications, readiness requirements and off-the-cuff deployments to the Middle East”.

This had, he said, piled up endless maintenance, meaning fewer ships are ready for war while China continues rapid naval expansion. Mohammad Basha, of the Basha Report consultancy in Virginia, tells The National that these challenges will not impact the counter-Houthi campaign in the short term.

“The USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group has demonstrated the capability to sustain extended operations. During its 2007-08 deployment, the Carrier Strike Group operated for approximately seven months, conducting missions in the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Maritime Security Operations,” he says, adding that planes from the ship conducted “2,459 combat sorties​”.

“Currently, the USS Harry S. Truman is positioned west of Jeddah, with daily supply flights from Bahrain, home of the US 5th Fleet, supporting its operations.” Mr Basha says a campaign of similar duration can be expected against the Houthis from this carrier force, led by a commander who knows the campaign intimately.

“​Captain Chris ‘Chowdah’ Hill, previously the commanding officer of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69), has been appointed as the interim commanding officer of the USS Harry S. Truman,” he says.

The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower spent nine months in the Red Sea at the start of the crisis, described as one of the most intense naval deployments by the US military for decades.