Shock in Washington: The Houthis Shake the Foundations of U.S. Alliances!
NYN | Reports and Analyses
Amid contradictions and narrative confusion, the U.S. administration and its media reveal a chronic political schizophrenia in their handling of the Houthi (Ansar Allah) issue. After years of portraying them as an absolute extension of Iran in Yemen, Washington was recently forced—reluctantly—to acknowledge the Houthis’ independence from Tehran. However, it suddenly shifted the accusations toward Moscow and Beijing, as if engaging in a strategic game of finding a new enemy to cover its misreading of the situation.
Illustrating this shift, Foreign Policy magazine recently exposed new contradictions regarding the nature of the support received by the Houthis in Yemen.
According to the magazine, the Houthis are politically independent of Iran and receive military and economic support from Russia and China.
The report also recalled that in 2019, the Houthis targeted Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure, halting half of the country’s oil production for two to three weeks. They also launched drone and missile attacks on the United Arab Emirates.
Foreign Policy further noted that the Houthis have withstood Saudi-led efforts to topple them for nearly a decade. It pointed out that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are betting on a major economic transformation through massive investments in artificial intelligence in cooperation with leading U.S. companies. These investments, the report suggested, might make new facilities vulnerable to Houthi attacks.
In what seems like a call for a global war, Foreign Policy warns that the Houthis (Ansar Allah) have become an international threat, especially after the collapse of the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. The magazine argues that the U.S., Israel, and their allies must form an international coalition to counter the Houthis—as if the group possesses a superpower capable of destabilizing the entire planet. Yet, while acknowledging the difficulty of deterring the Houthis, the magazine conveniently ignores that this regional conflict may not require a global front but rather straightforward political solutions—such as ending the war on Gaza and lifting the blockade, in line with international law and humanitarian principles.
Despite Foreign Policy’s attempt to present itself as a neutral analytical platform, its latest report falls squarely within the Western narrative wrapped in political realism—one that overlooks fundamental facts while justifying the failure of Washington and its allies in Yemen. Instead of holding Saudi Arabia and its coalition accountable for years of devastating war and humanitarian catastrophe, the magazine recasts the Houthis (Ansar Allah) as a new terrorist entity that must be fought, using the same tools of media distortion.
Washington’s belated acknowledgment of the Houthis’ independence from Iran was not an act of self-criticism but rather a convenient excuse to shift the crisis onto Russia and China. As if the real issue were not foreign intervention and occupation, but imaginary threats fabricated by Washington to recycle its wars.
Ultimately, what Washington seeks is a monotonous reproduction of the “external threat” narrative—one that justifies its hegemony, denies nations their right to resist, and covers up the crimes of its allies.
