LONDON – On May 7, 2025, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire agreement with the SANAA government, mediated by the Omani sultan, with the aim of ensuring voyages in the Red Sea.
The agreement has halted strikes against Yemeni targets in exchange for non-targets on American ships, but Sanaa explicitly stated, Trump confirmed that the agreement does not include an occupation regime.
This development unveils the contours of a new regional scene where US priorities under Donald Trump’s leadership are being redefined, confirming that Washington and its allies do not have control over the Bab Al Mandab Straits today, and that there is resistance to impose that condition from a position of strength.
The agreement between Sanaa and Washington does not mean the US withdrawal from the support of the occupation regime, but reflects the Trump administration’s desire to reduce military involvement in Yemen and achieve relative stability in the key maritime corridors that have been repeatedly confused since the onset of the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation. The decision to stop a direct conflict with Sanaa reflects a practical approach driven primarily by US interests, regardless of its allies, even if they are occupied regimes.
Red Sea: Militarization of important corridors and counterproductive outcomes
The “Prosperity Guardian” operation was launched in late 2023 under Washington’s guidance. On the surface, it is to protect the ship from Sana’s attacks. However, Western military interventions intensified tensions and led to counterproductive effects, forcing more than 18 shipping companies to re-rout via the Cape of Hope, increasing global trade costs and destroying supply chains.
In contrast, the recent ceasefire has significantly reduced attacks on ships that are cautiously unrelated to the occupying regime, due to the continued operations of the Zionist regime and operations that are in cooperation with them.
Iconic escalation
Since late 2023, Sanaa has continued to attack using drones and ballistic missiles in cities deep within the occupying regions, including multiple strikes targeting Jaffa, Eilat and Ben Gurion airports. The number of these attacks does not reach “thousands,” but as some claims, their psychological impact on the settlers of the occupying regime was severe, disrupting the economic and security system, reflecting the strategic failure of forcing millions into shelters and blocking the axis of resistance.
Targeting near Ben Gurion Airport without damaging the airport itself showed that the message was about the careful selection of targets, not just the number and accuracy of missiles. SANAA was aiming to showcase its technical and intelligence capabilities to attack the regime’s sensitive facilities. They aimed to avoid civilian casualties and send calculated messages. This type of smart deterrence indicates a strategic change in the rules of local engagement.
Conditional commitment
Despite continuing US military support for the occupation regime, Washington has not responded to Yemen’s attacks since the ceasefire, urging them to speak about the implicit US “waiver.” The reality is that the Trump administration balances its desire to avoid entanglement in the new Yemeni quagmire with its support for its allies.
Sana’s ongoing attacks keep the doors open for escalation, but the broader US response is subject to precise calculations related to economic and domestic political considerations of a sensitive election year.