TEHRAN – About 20 days after one of the most expensive overseas businesses under President Donald Trump’s second term, the US military strike in Yemen brought little or no strategic success. Despite an estimated $1 billion spending, Ansarullah is open, active and increasingly encouraging. Unless they are under obstacles, the group continues its campaign of maritime operations in the Red Sea, defiing the world’s most advanced military machinery, revealing clear failures in American strategic plans.
When President Trump re-inaugurated office in January 2025, one of his first foreign policy moves was to take action against rising threats from the Ansarla movement in the Red Sea. Following a series of attacks in support of the oppressed Palestinian people on Israel-related commercial vessels, the White House has approved a powerful airstrike campaign.
Under the pretext of “restoring freedom of navigation,” the administration launched hundreds of airstrikes in North and Western Yemen.
$1 billion in drain
However, the choice to prioritize diplomatic engagement, regional coalition construction, or addressing Israeli war in Gaza has proven to be not only strategically weak, but also financially reckless.
Defense analysts estimate that military operations cost more than $1 billion. For a campaign that offers little measurable degradation to Ansarullah’s capabilities.
In fact, Centcom reports the elimination of “dozens of movement targets,” but independent observers say these claims are untestable and likely exaggerated. In particular, Yemen resumed its transport lane strike a few days after each reported “success.”
Ansarra responds by sending a strategic message in the face of a US bomb
Washington measured the Yemeni campaign with dollar, drones and air sorties, but Yemeni Ansarra movement responded with a distinctly different strategy.
Far from cowering under the weight of billions of dollars of American attacks, the movement’s leadership has seized moments that strengthened their political legitimacy and boosted morale at home and abroad.
Shortly after the first wave of the US strike in early January 2025, senior spokesman and chief negotiator for Ansarlah, Mohammed Abdulsalam, issued a previous statement via Almasila TV and on his official telegram channel.
“American and British invaders believe that by bombing our territory, we can either silence our voices or break our will. They get wrong. They only strengthen our resolve, and will continue until the aggression of the people of Gaza ends, and until the siege of our country is lifted.
Abdul Malik al-Hauc, the leader of the movement, spoke to the public on February 29, 2025. He called the US campaign “proof of their despair.”
“They bomb us from the sky because they cannot head us to the ground. They hide behind satellites and jets in fear of the will of our people. American attacks are not a sign of strength. It is a sign of weakness. We did not seek war. We protect the water, the sky, and the dignity.
In mid-March, Al Houghty also said resistance fighters will target US ships in the Red Sea as long as the US continues to attack Yemen.
“If they continue to aggression, we will continue to escalate,” he said in a speech aired shortly after the launch of the first round of attacks in Yemen under President Trump.
The Politicobusiness of the Ansarla Movement also described the US attack as a “war crime.”
Ansarullah’s media outlets are trying to present images of drone launches, military parades, intercept American ammunition, and present images of strength despite overwhelming firepower being deployed. Their reports describe the American strike as “co-disease.”
Additionally, Ansarullah officials said the attacks backfired by uniting the population behind the movement.
Ansarra also strategically used international law and sovereign discourse to frame US actions as a violation of Yemen’s self-determination. It was sent to the United Nations in March 2025.
Yemen described the strike as “an unprovoked violation of Yemen’s national airspace,” and called on the UN Security Council to investigate “American war crimes.”
These calculated statements form part of a sophisticated campaign that combines messages of moral highlands, military resilience and anti-imperialism, rather than a random explosion.
Strategic failures due to ignoring political reality
What the Trump administration underestimated or ignored was the decentralized nature of Ansarla military command. Many of the movement’s missile units are often underground and operate in mountainous regions with the support of local tribal networks. The ability to adapt quickly and avoid detection has made them a nightmare for traditional military forces that rely heavily on aviation surveillance and the air force.
The air campaign allowed Yemen to support domestic support and further entrench their control.
The result was a campaign without direction, budgets without supervision, and strategy without ending.
Trump’s Yemeni strategy has also exacerbated tensions in West Asia. Instead of isolating Yemen, the campaign stimulated anti-American sentiment, particularly in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
On the international stage, traditional European American allies have expressed cautionary support for maritime security, expressing concern over increasing casualties against civilians and the ongoing humanitarian crisis. France and Germany are seeking “political solutions and a return to the negotiation table.” This is a stance that highlights clear differences from Washington’s mostly military approach.
At home, Trump’s Yemeni policy has attracted rare, bipartisan criticism. Members of both parties require clarification of the purpose of the operation, engagement rules and withdrawal strategies.
Senator Chris Murphy described the campaign as “an infinite operation with no measurable goals.” On the Republican side, Sen. Rand Paul questioned the wisdom of spending billions abroad while Americans faced economic uncertainty at home.
Polls also suggest declined support. A recent Gallup survey found that only 27% of Americans have approved airstrikes, while 62% believe that funding can be used better due to domestic issues such as healthcare, infrastructure and education.
Yemeni civilians pay the price
The US military claims that the strike is “surgical” and “target,” but humanitarian organisations tell a different story.
Several strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, according to the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Medical facilities, schools and residential buildings have been damaged or destroyed in states such as Sa’dah, Hodeidah and Sana’a.
Human costs are devastating:
– More than 250 civilian casualties linked directly to airstrikes since January 2025.
– Thousands have been evacuated for the second or third time since the war began in 2015.
– Access to aid to compromise as bombing near major supply routes delays delivery of food, water and medicines.
Huge costs, minimal profits
The past decades have demonstrated that, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya, military interventions not only fail to resolve conflicts, but often create new complexities when political, economic and social strategies are not involved.
In Yemen, US military operations do not appear to be undermining the Ansarla movement. Rather, they pushed the group towards guerrilla tactics and further established their position in the country’s mountainous regions. Furthermore, the psychological and social consequences of these attacks on Yemeni civilians could promote the rise of a new generation of opponents and resisters.
The Trump administration’s handling of Yemen has become a case study of strategic failures. High Stakes military efforts destined to be started with confidence, continued with rog arrogance, and ended with regret.
If the US really wants to secure the Red Sea, it must focus on diplomacy, reconstruction and conflict resolution.
Otherwise, the next billion dollars might buy just another chapter of America’s long history.