On the menu today: Few Americans have noticed that a bunch of Iranian-backed militants have effectively shut down one of the world’s major shipping lanes to everyone . . . with one exception. One company’s ships seem to be passing through the dangerous waters without being targeted. Care to guess which hostile nuclear-armed power is getting free passage from the Houthis? Meanwhile, Chris Christie complains that Noah Rothman and Hugh Hewitt aren’t being fair to him.
Iran-Backed Houthis Shut Down Red Sea Shipping — but Not for the Chinese
Quick geography lesson: The Red Sea, which many Americans associate with Moses, is the lone connection between the Indian Ocean and the Suez Canal, which connects to the Mediterranean Sea. Saudi Arabia and Yemen border the Red Sea on one side, and Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, and Djibouti are on the other side.
If you want to ship goods from India and Asia to Europe or the Atlantic, or vice versa, you have two main options: You can sail through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, which is the fastest and most direct route, or you can sail all the way around the continent of Africa. (There is also the Northern Sea Route, through the Arctic Ocean, but the ability to traverse that route is dependent upon Russian-managed icebreakers.)
Sailing around Africa adds about 6,000 miles and about two weeks’ time to the journey, which burns more fuel and makes shipping more expensive for consumers. On a normal day, anywhere from 50 to 60 cargo ships transit the Red Sea — about 30 percent of all cargo traffic in the entire world.
But this region has not seen a normal day in quite some time.
The Houthis are essentially a wholly owned subsidiary of Iranian Mullahs Inc. and are one side in a long-simmering, bloody civil war in Yemen. The Houthis are the kind of militia who have adopted the Nazi salute, chant “Death to America. Death to Israel. Curse the Jews,” etc. The Houthis’ record on human rights, women’s rights, torture, use of child soldiers, and so on is every bit as appalling as you would imagine.
One of President Biden’s first major foreign-policy actions was cutting off U.S. support for Saudi Arabia in its fight against the Houthis. Biden accused the Saudis of creating “a humanitarian and strategic catastrophe.” After extensive efforts by the United Nations, the two sides reached a truce in mid 2022, and the cease-fire appears to be holding.
The Houthis may well have bigger fish to fry. Starting in mid November, the Houthis first attempted hijackings of cargo ships, and then began hitting ships in the Red Sea and the adjacent Northern Arabian sea with drone strikes and missiles.
The New York Times apparently has actual sources within Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, who spelled out the plan back in early December:
Analysts close to the Iranian government said the Houthis’ base in Yemen makes them ideally positioned to escalate fighting in the region, in the hopes of pressuring Israel to end its war with Hamas in Gaza.
The analysts’ assessment tracks with descriptions of a plan by Iran and its network of militias to increase attacks on Israeli and American targets in the region, according to two Iranians affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps who were not authorized to speak publicly.
The Houthis, the analysts said, are Iran’s chosen proxies because from Yemen they are both close enough to the Red Sea’s strategic waterways to disrupt global shipping, and far enough from Israel to make retaliatory strikes difficult. Unlike Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group that has struck Israel from Lebanon, the Houthis are not beholden to domestic political dynamics — making them effectively accountable to no one.
According to an unnamed White House official:
Since November 19th, Houthi rebels from Yemen have attacked commercial vessels 23 times. They’ve been using a combination of anti-ship ballistic missiles — for the first time, anti-ship ballistic missiles have been used anywhere, let alone against commercial ships — land attack cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and fast boats.
With the Houthis firing missiles on a regular basis at cargo ships heading toward or through the Red Sea, unsurprisingly, most cargo companies are diverting their ships to the much longer and much more expensive alternate routes.
Denmark’s Maersk “announced that it would pause all vessels bound for the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden in light of the recent incident involving Maersk Hangzhou and ongoing developments in the area. The situation is constantly evolving and remains highly volatile, and all available intelligence at hand confirms that the security risk continues to be at a significantly elevated level. We have therefore decided that all Maersk vessels due to transit the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden will be diverted south around the Cape of Good Hope for the foreseeable future.”
Switzerland’s Mediterranean Shipping Company, France’s CMA CGM, and Germany’s Hapag-Lloyd also announced the suspension of their services in the Red Sea.
Not every shipping company, however, is diverting all its ships from that route. One of the exceptions is China’s state-owned COSCO shipping lines.
The Middle East Media Research Institute, a Washington-based nonprofit that monitors and translates foreign media sources, spotlighted a YouTube video posted December 19 by Chinese professor and military expert Yun Hua, who is a faculty member at the PLA’s National Defense University.
In his remarks, Yun Hua laid out that the Houthis’ deference to Chinese ships was no coincidence, and boasted, “China’s COSCO Shipping Holding has become the only major shipping giant able to navigate the Red Sea.” His remarks:
The national fortune has arrived, and nothing can stop it. The storm set off by the Houthis has even benefitted China. Hello everyone, I am Xiao Yunhua. In recent days, as we mentioned in our programs, the Houthi militants in Yemen have expanded their range of attacks on ships belonging to Israel and Western allies in the Red Sea, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Gulf of Aden. This has effectively closed the door for the Suez Canal, the busiest global shipping route to the American and Western bloc.
However, the Houthi militants in Yemen haven’t reacted much to the idea of the U.S. forming a coalition; they simply stated that the Houthis can confront any alliance the United States tries to create in the Red Sea.
“Why are we discussing this? Because what’s really interesting is that the U.S. announced this coalition unilaterally, and other participating countries have not given a clear response. Whether they’re coming or not is still unknown. Just a few days ago, a French warship was chased all the way by a Houthi dinghy. Austin’s statement seems more like a political move to show that the U.S. is not isolated in the Middle East. And, importantly, there has been no reaction from the other major Middle Eastern powers, and Bahrain is more politically bound and reluctant to oppose the United States. Without local support, this coalition force of ten countries is unlikely to be very substantial, as supply lines would become a major issue.
“Given the backdrop of Europe being generally dragged down by the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it’s hard to say whether this coalition will be successful, especially since the Houthi militants can choose to engage in naval warfare when it suits them and retreat to the mountains when they can’t win, launching missiles when you’re not paying attention. How will this coalition force of ten countries handle that? Will they have a permanent presence in the Red Sea? Who will foot the bill? If they choose to conduct a landing operation to encircle and suppress, won’ it lead to another quagmire in the Middle East? So the U.S. initiative in this matter is likely to start with a lot of enthusiasm but may eventually fizzle out.
After discussing the U.S. response, let’s talk about the impact on China. As I mentioned a few days ago, the Houthis expanding their attack range in the Red Sea has undoubtedly been beneficial to China. From the latest developments, five global international shipping companies — Denmark’s Maersk, Switzerland’s Mediterranean Shipping Company, France’s CMA CGM, Germany’s Hapag-Lloyd — have successively announced the suspension of their services in the Red Sea, opting to detour around Africa. This has resulted in direct increases in time and transportation costs. China’s COSCO Shipping Holding has become the only major shipping giant able to navigate the Red Sea.
In other words, Iran, through the Houthis, is effectively shutting off the Red Sea to ships from countries it doesn’t like, and only allowing ships from countries it does like to safely pass through the Suez Canal.
The Axis of the Devils is operating right in front of us, bragging about it. Our president, who has not made any public appearance or remarks in 13 days, has made no public remarks about this crisis.
Yesterday, a senior administration official conducted a background call and laid out the Biden team’s efforts to get a U.N. resolution denouncing the attacks:
So, in response to this, we have had a significant diplomatic effort. I mentioned the U.N. Security Council, the first statement they had on December 1st. There’s also action in the U.N. Security Council as we speak, in New York. A statement on December 19th, joined by 44 countries all around the world issued by foreign ministries. And on the military side, on December 18th, of course, we formed a defensive naval coalition called Operation Prosperity Guardian with a number of countries from around the world, now with naval assets operating in coordination with us and the U.S. Navy and U.S. naval forces in the Red Sea.
That unnamed official also emphasized how serious a warning the administration was sending to the Houthis:
The President asked for an effort to talk to allies and partners with a statement that would very clearly — very clearly send a warning to the Houthis that they will bear full consequences and responsibility for any further attacks against commercial vessels in the Red Sea.
At the end of the briefing, Andrea Mitchell of NBC News asked, “So is that it? Would there be another warning if there’s another incident? Would you wait for an incident to respond, or would you take preemptive action?”
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Andrea, thank you. Again, I’m not going to get into rules of engagement or any anticipatory further action. I would just say that I don’t — I would not anticipate another warning. I think this statement speaks very much for itself.
And we have acted defensively. And again, I think it’s a very clear warning. We’re going to let the statement stand for itself, and I’m just not going to get ahead of the process from here.
There are a lot of people in this world who know more about foreign policy and national security than me, but I feel safe concluding that Houthi militias will not be deterred by U.N. Security Council resolutions, joint statements, or sternly worded warnings. I do suspect that the Houthis will stop when enough bodies of their comrades look like barbecue because of an incoming missile.
This is the sort of thing that my colleagues here at NR have been covering extensively — here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Our Dominic Pino noticed:
On Tuesday, the head of U.S. 5th Fleet, Vice Adm. Brad Cooper, visited the ship and presented “combat medals” to five sailors for their “exceptional performance” when the warship shot down 14 Houthi air drones on Dec. 16.” In addition to those medals, the entire crew received a “combat action ribbon.”
You only award combat medals when there’s, you know, combat. The Houthis are shooting at our navy, and our navy is shooting back.
The U.S. is effectively at war with the Houthis and Iran; some parts of our government just don’t want to acknowledge it.
Many corners of the media world seem much less interested in this ongoing crisis than NR is. (Perhaps it’s because there’s no Donald Trump angle to the story.) But one cannot help but notice that as with the eight American hostages still held by Hamas, and the glacial pace of the transfer of U.S. weapons to Ukraine, there’s a strange lack of interest in some otherwise dramatic stories about foreign policy, national security, and the world scene. It’s almost as if some members of the media decided the lesson of the 1980 election was to never cover a foreign-policy crisis under a Democratic president too extensively, lest it help the Republican challenger.
ADDENDUM: Chris Christie, appearing on Hugh Hewitt’s radio program, yesterday morning:
HH: Now Governor, I was talking to Noah Rothman, who like me is a big admirer of you, and unlike me, is actually your constituent, knows your record by heart, and thought you were a great governor. But I want to quote Noah. “It is simply undeniable that he is hurting Nikki Haley, and he is doing profound reputational harm to himself. I cannot understand what he is doing that is on the upside right now.” How do you answer Noah?
CC: Well, first of all, you know, Noah doesn’t have the first idea of what he’s talking about. The fact is that I’m running for president of the United States, and no one’s voted, yet. And I don’t have an obligation to do anything other than to answer questions, tell the truth, run a good campaign, and try to win. And so you know, where this has become Nikki Haley’s campaign when no one’s voted yet is kind of a mystery to me, Hugh.
In every poll of New Hampshire primary voters since June, Christie has been between 6 percent and 14 percent. Donald Trump has been between 37 percent and 52 percent, and Nikki Haley, who was as low as 3 percent in August, is up to 30 percent in the most recent Saint Anselm survey after a late surge. Another exchange between Hugh and Christie yesterday morning:
HH: Let me reframe the question, Governor Christie. Does your data show that a significant number of Christie voters would vote for Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis if you dropped out?
CC: Yes.
Either the non-Trump and/or anti-Trump vote coalesces behind one candidate, or Trump wins the nomination. That is a simple, straightforward fact. Chris Christie doesn’t have to like that fact, but that doesn’t make it any less true. Christie has about 10 percent of New Hampshire Republican primary voters who are self-evidently strongly opposed to Trump. He can help put those voters into the Haley pile and give her a shot at winning, or he can stay in the race, divide the non-Trump vote, and help Trump win the Granite State and, in all likelihood, cruise to the nomination.
Christie went on to complain during the interview, “I don’t understand how we’re in, I have to tell you the truth, Hugh. You have interviewed me probably a hundred times. I’ve never had a less substantive interview with you in my life.”
You’re not going to find many figures in the media world who are more willing to give Christie a fair shake than Noah and Hugh. The fact that Christie is griping about them says a great deal about where he and his campaign are right now.