US President Joe Biden has said that attacks on the Houthis will continue even as he acknowledged that the group have not stopped their Red Sea attacks.

The US carried out a fifth round of strikes on Yemen on Thursday after a US ship was struck by a Houthi drone.

White House spokesman John Kirby told reporters that US forces “took out a range of Houthi missiles” that were about to be fired towards the Red Sea.

He said the American attacks took place on Wednesday and again on Thursday.

On Wednesday, a Houthi drone hit a “US owned and operated bulk carrier ship” which later had to be rescued by India’s navy. It came as the US designated the Houthis as a terrorist organisation.

“Well, when you say working are they stopping the Houthis? No,” Mr Biden told reporters in Washington DC on Thursday before he left for a speech in North Carolina.

“Are they gonna continue? Yes.”

Archive

  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Not sure there was anything else going to happen about this. Houthis are shooting missiles so now they get missiles shot back in the hopes they’ll stop.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    It’s totally unexpected that bombing the mountain tribe that has turned into a very successful rebel group, with the same stuff they’ve been bombed with by Saudi Arabia for years, would not actually stop them and make them change their minds.

    I mean, weren’t both the US Adminstration and British Cabinet implying just a weak ago that the one strike back then would be it?!

    Surelly the History of US and UK interventions in the Middle East did not at all hint that one single strike against such an adversary would be enough???!

    Oh and by the way, for our dutch friends: Et was heel erg stom om met de VS en de VK mee te gaan (it was really stupid to go along with the US and UK).

    • Doorbook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      When the Arab coalition got closer to Hudidah port to stop Iranian arms to reach the Houthi. The UK intervene claiming “Famine and war crimes”

      They wanted the Houthi there because the Saudi will keep buying militry aid.

      Now these same port and more got bombed with no media talking about famine or war crimes.

  • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    It was a bit obvious.

    What’s more interesting - if US would continue to bomb them, would other actors take an opportunity against rebels? Yemeni monarchy, for example. Reigniting another war would be even more disastorous.

    • breakfastmtn@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m sure both the recognized Yemeni government and Saudi Arabia are absolutely stoked about this. It’s actually a bit weird how exuberant the Houthis seem about it all given how many people are sharpening knives in the background.

      • harold999@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Nope, totally wrong. KSA has demanded the US stop attacks.

        Just because you beat your wife all the time, doesn’t mean you’ll let anyone else do it.

      • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        After the humanitarian disaster of Decisive Storm, it’s hard to understand. Maybe enough Iranian money can cure one of empathy.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    White House spokesman John Kirby told reporters that US forces “took out a range of Houthi missiles” that were about to be fired towards the Red Sea.

    US Central Command - which oversees US operations in the Middle East - said in a statement that it had “conducted strikes on two Houthi anti-ship missiles that were aimed into the Southern Red Sea and were prepared to launch” on Thursday.

    “US forces identified the missiles in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen” around 15:40 local time (12:40GMT) “and determined they were an imminent threat to merchant vessels and US Navy ships in the region”.

    Also on Thursday, the leader of the Houthis delivered a fiery hour-long televised speech in which he called it a “great honour” to be “in direct confrontation” with Israel, the US and the UK.

    Since then, the group has launched dozens of attacks on commercial tankers passing through the Red Sea, one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes.

    The strikes - supported by Australia, Bahrain, the Netherlands and Canada - began after Houthi forces ignored an ultimatum to cease attacks in the region.


    The original article contains 469 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 61%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

      • Arthur_Leywin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        The Houthis attacked ships on the Red Sea. This could:

        1. Violate international law
        2. Destabilize the region
        3. Have an impact on global trade

        The Houthis fucked up and America is punishing them understandingly so. Can’t say the same for helping Israel but we should analyze events fairly and not have a knee-jerk reaction with " 'Murca bad" all the time.

        • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          The US has spent decades developing and deploying smart munitions in an effort to be the good guys and minimize civilian casualties. It’s all very laudable but, in return, terrorists like the Houthis and Hamas have learned to hide more effectively in the civilian population, effectively creating human shields, which is a war crime.

          It is probably true that a few retaliatory strikes won’t stop the Houthis from firing their Iranian missiles at civilian shipping. Something more drastic may be necessary. For example, I can’t imagine that Egypt is particularly happy about the reduction in traffic through Suez, nor should any bordering country be happy with missiles flying around over a shipping lane. It’s also an environmental disaster waiting to happen.

      • Kepabar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        President has wide latitude in matters like this. Air strikes in this context are legal for him. He can even deploy troops as long as their deployment isn’t longer then 60 days.

  • badbytes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    10 months ago

    Wow. As a progressive left voting Democrat, getting downvoted for not agreeing with establishment. OK, thanks. Lesson learned. Thanks democrats.

    • RedFox@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I’m pretty sure ww3 was already started by stuxnet. Have you not seen the news lately regarding cyber crime/espionage/attacks?

  • badbytes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    37
    ·
    10 months ago

    As a Democrat, thanks Joe, for giving me more reasons to vote for another.