What Signalgate says about America's attitude to Yemen

This week’s news that some of the most senior figures in America’s national security establishment were found to be using an online group chat to discuss military operations in another country has stunned many in Washington DC, as well as observers overseas. The messages, exchanged in the hours leading up to US air strikes against the Houthi rebel group in Yemen, contained sensitive intelligence. An American journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, was "inadvertently" added to the group chat by one of the participants, apparently without anyone noticing. During the exchange, Pete Hegseth , America’s Secretary of Defence, apparently told US Vice President JD Vance: “I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what – nobody knows who the Houthis are”. While the details of having the Signal messaging group in themselves are quite interesting, this particular message warrants reflection. That “nobody knows” who the Houthis are, more than a decade after the Iran-backed militants’ violent rise to power and their direct threat to American interests, is a worrying sign for those who want to see peace in Yemen as well as an end to the group’s destabilising attacks in the Red Sea and its threat to the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. That such an admission was made amid expectations that the US is preparing to send a second nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to the Red Sea suggests a somewhat cavalier attitude among some American policymakers towards what is a highly combustible situation. Yemen’s neighbours – and indeed the country’s long-suffering civilian population – have long understood the nature of this radical group. Over the years, the militants have attacked their Gulf neighbours , including the UAE in January 2022 and Saudi Arabia three months later. The rebels’ campaign against international shipping since October 7, 2023 – ostensibly in support of the Palestinians – has earned the group nearly $2.2 billion a year in illegal fees extorted from several shipping agencies, according to evidence heard by the UN Security Council last October. Their drone and missile attacks on Israel have drawn an overwhelming response in the form of retaliatory air strikes. The Houthis’ dubious reputation deserves to be better known internationally than it currently is. Their extensive use of child soldiers, violent repression of domestic dissent and dangerous inability to govern effectively have contributed to the misery being experienced by millions of ordinary Yemenis, who must endure the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Self-described anti-imperialists may tout such militias as “resistance groups” but in reality, the Houthis remain autocratic militarists who are wedded to an extreme ideology, carry out attacks that bring more suffering to their people and destabilise an already destabilised area. Better international co-operation to not only frustrate the Houthis militarily but renew humanitarian efforts to support Yemen’s people and work towards a just political settlement depend upon a well-articulated and well-publicised understanding of just who the militants are. Members of the Arab Coalition that took action to try to restore Yemen’s internationally-recognised government were clear about how dangerous and extreme the Houthi organisation is. It would be better if more countries also understood – and explained – what they are dealing with.