Muslim World Report

The Legal and Geopolitical Fallout of U.S. Strikes in Yemen

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 24, 2025 10:14 AM | 8 min read | 1677 words

TL;DR: U.S. airstrikes in Yemen authorized by both President Biden and former President Trump have raised significant concerns regarding executive military authority and legality. Critics argue these strikes bypass Congressional oversight established by the 2001 AUMF. The geopolitical fallout spans potential Iranian retaliation, regional power dynamics, and the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, necessitating a careful evaluation of U.S. military engagement and the prioritization of diplomatic solutions.

An Evolving Battlefield: The Geopolitical Implications of U.S. Airstrikes in Yemen

In response to escalating tensions in the Middle East—particularly the increased Houthi attacks on commercial shipping and U.S. warships in the Red Sea—both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump have authorized airstrikes against Houthi-controlled targets in Yemen. These military actions, framed as defensive operations, aim to safeguard international shipping lanes and deter aggression during a volatile period, which includes the ongoing Israeli counter-offensive in Gaza. This situation has sparked a fierce debate over the extent of presidential power in military engagement.

Concerns Over Executive Power

Critics argue these strikes represent a significant overreach of executive authority, bypassing the legislative checks traditionally established by Congress. Key concerns include:

  • Legality of the strikes: The operations’ legality, especially in light of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), raises critical questions about presidential power.
  • Ambiguity in definitions: Originally intended to address threats from Al-Qaeda, the AUMF has been expansively interpreted to justify actions against various global entities. Proponents claim protecting shipping constitutes an imminent threat to national security, yet the vagueness of this definition enables flexible interpretations of executive military authority (Suedfeld & Tetlock, 1977; Howell, 2005).

As the international community reacts, including a recent United Nations resolution condemning Houthi aggression, the urgency for a nuanced understanding of U.S. military involvement grows. The juxtaposition of airstrikes against Houthi positions and Iran’s missile launches at a U.S. base in Qatar underscores a dangerous escalation of military confrontations. This situation could spiral into broader conflicts, reflecting immediate dangers while capturing long-standing issues of sovereignty, regional stability, and the implications of unilateral military actions (Darwich, 2018; Gleick, 2019).

Broader Repercussions

The repercussions extend beyond military considerations; they affect:

  • Diplomatic relations
  • Strategic alliances
  • Power balances within the region

The complexities of U.S.-Iran relations are particularly highlighted as both nations navigate a landscape marked by confrontations that appear controlled yet are fraught with risks of miscalculation. Potential Iranian retaliation could manifest in various forms, such as:

  • Direct strikes on U.S. forces
  • Attacks on U.S. allies
  • Activation of proxy groups across the Middle East

Each scenario carries the risk of igniting a broader conflict that sidelines diplomatic channels (Hoffman, 2003; Darwich, 2018).

The What-If Scenarios of U.S. Military Engagement

Exploring the ‘What If’ potentialities surrounding U.S. airstrikes in Yemen provides insight into the myriad responses from stakeholders shaping this volatile situation.

What If Congress Asserts Its Authority?

If Congress were to assert itself more robustly regarding military engagements, particularly in light of the recent airstrikes, the dynamics of U.S. foreign policy could undergo significant transformation:

  • A push from Congress might lead to renewed debate on the AUMF.
  • This could result in a more decisive legislative approach towards military expenditures and interventions.
  • Congressional authority could compel the executive branch to foster greater transparency in military operations.

However, this path faces challenges, including resistance from leaders across party lines, particularly if military engagement is framed as vital for national security. Such actions might reshape U.S. international engagements and influence perceptions of American imperialism (Matisek, 2017). Moreover, an assertive Congressional stance might lead to political standoffs, complicating U.S. responses to international crises.

What If the U.S. Adopts Strategic Restraint?

Should the U.S. adopt a policy of strategic restraint, the implications could stabilize the situation in the short term:

  • Prioritizing diplomatic outreach over military escalation could help rebuild alliances.
  • Such a pivot would resonate with a war-weary American public and signal a departure from military intervention.

However, this strategy carries risks. A perceived retreat from military engagement might embolden adversaries, including Iran and its proxies, potentially leading to increased aggressiveness against U.S. forces. The effectiveness of restraint remains uncertain; adversaries may interpret it as weakness rather than an opportunity for dialogue (Nye, 2003; Gleick, 2019). Miscalculations regarding U.S. intentions could lead to escalated military confrontations.

What If Iran Decides to Retaliate?

The potential for Iranian retaliation is substantial, potentially manifesting in several ways:

  • Direct strikes against U.S. forces or allies could provoke severe military conflict.
  • Activation of proxy groups may lead to asymmetric warfare tactics, including cyber-attacks and drone strikes.

These actions would further destabilize the area, necessitating a reevaluation of U.S. strategies and alliances.

What If Regional Powers Respond Differently?

Reactions of regional powers to U.S. airstrikes could significantly impact the geopolitical landscape:

  • Countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE may escalate military involvement in Yemen or elsewhere.
  • Conversely, nations favoring diplomatic solutions may seek to mediate between the U.S. and Iran.

If regional powers collaborate to create a diplomatic framework for addressing the Yemeni conflict, it could lead to a more sustainable resolution and prevent further U.S. involvement.

What If the Houthis Shift Their Strategy?

The Houthis might recalibrate their approach in response to the changing dynamics. Continued aggression against U.S. interests could lead to harsher responses, resulting in their isolation or potential military defeat. A strategy centered on diplomatic engagement could open doors for peace talks involving multiple stakeholders, potentially alleviating humanitarian suffering in Yemen.

What If Global Public Opinion Shifts?

Public opinion regarding U.S. military actions can significantly influence foreign policy decisions. A notable shift in global public opinion—

  • Advocating for accountability and transparency in military engagements—could pressure the U.S. government to reconsider its policies.
  • A more informed citizenry may push for decreased military interventions, reshaping how the U.S. engages with conflicts abroad.

A movement demanding a more humane and diplomatic approach could transform the political landscape, influencing election outcomes and legislative processes. If voters prioritize peace-oriented policies, politicians may feel compelled to align their platforms accordingly.

The Broader Geopolitical Implications

The complexities of U.S. military involvement in Yemen also highlight the broader geopolitical implications of such interventions. The current situation exemplifies the delicate balance of power in the region, where actions by any one nation can have ripple effects beyond local borders.

Lessons from Past Interventions

Historically, U.S. military interventions have often led to unintended consequences that exaggerated tensions. The Yemeni conflict follows a pattern consistent with past U.S. interventions, where military aggression frequently substitutes for diplomatic engagement. Analyzing these historical precedents is critical for future engagements (Darwich, 2018; Gleick, 2019).

Examples include:

  • The 2003 invasion of Iraq, justified by the elimination of alleged WMDs, resulted in prolonged regional destabilization.
  • The 2011 involvement in Libya, aimed at civilian protection, ultimately created a power vacuum leading to civil war.

Such lessons underscore the necessity for careful analysis and a comprehensive approach prioritizing diplomacy and conflict resolution.

Exploring Alternatives to Military Engagement

Moving forward, U.S. military engagement in the Middle East requires careful consideration from all stakeholders. Key strategies include:

  • Recalibrating military presence to emphasize diplomatic efforts aligned with international law.
  • Creating discussions with allies about the strategic role of U.S. forces to mitigate tensions without unilateral actions.
  • Emphasizing non-military alternatives like economic incentives, humanitarian aid, and development programs to stabilize the region.

A holistic approach to conflicts can significantly contribute to long-term peace and security.

The Need for a Multilateral Approach

The need for a multilateral approach to conflict resolution is more critical than ever. By addressing the Yemeni conflict and interests of various stakeholders collaboratively, the U.S. could offer a powerful alternative to military intervention. Key components include:

  • Forming partnerships with regional powers and international organizations to promote meaningful dialogue.
  • Incorporating voices from diverse factions within Yemen to ensure inclusive discussions that represent the perspectives of all stakeholders.

This approach may lead to more sustainable solutions resonating with the local population.

The Role of Humanitarian Considerations

The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Yemen must remain a priority in discussions of military involvement or conflict resolution. Immediate attention is necessary to alleviate the suffering of civilians amidst military actions. Strategies include:

  • Engaging in humanitarian aid and supporting relief programs.
  • Advocating for the protection of civilians as vital components of a diplomatic strategy.

By emphasizing humanitarian considerations, the U.S. aligns its actions with moral imperatives and enhances its credibility as a global leader committed to human rights.

Strategic Uncertainty and Future Directions

The situation in Yemen remains fluid, with each action and reaction contributing to a complex geopolitical landscape. The interplay between U.S. military actions, regional responses, and international dynamics creates an environment of strategic uncertainty.

The risk of miscalculation and escalation mandates a cautious approach, reinforcing the importance of diplomatic channels in facilitating dialogue and reducing hostilities. By prioritizing collaboration and restraint, the U.S. could navigate the complexities of military engagement while mitigating long-term consequences.

Ultimately, a commitment to diplomacy over militaristic responses should guide U.S. foreign policy in the region. Fostering a collaborative environment that encourages inclusive dialogue among stakeholders could pave the way for a more stable and equitable Middle East, balancing national interests with a commitment to peace, security, and humanitarian imperatives.

References

  • Darwich, M. (2018). The Dynamics of U.S. Military Engagement in the Middle East.
  • Diamond, L. (2002). The Role of Congress in U.S. Military Engagements.
  • Ducat, C., & Dudley, J. (1989). The Balance of Power: Congress and Military Authority.
  • Esfandiary, D., & Tabatabai, A. (2016). Iran’s Influence in the Middle East: Opportunities and Threats.
  • Gleick, P. H. (2019). Water and Conflict: A Historical Perspective.
  • Hoffman, B. (2003). The Myth of Grassroots Terrorism: Why Osama bin Laden Still Matters.
  • Howell, W. G. (2005). Presidential Power and the Politics of Military Engagement.
  • Koskenniemi, M., & Leino, P. (2002). Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Reform of International Law.
  • Magaloni, B. (2010). Democratic Development and the Role of the State.
  • Matisek, J. (2017). American Imperialism: Perceptions and Reality.
  • Nye, J. S. (2003). The Power to Lead: The Benefits and Risks of American Power.
  • Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. E. (1977). Cognitive Feedback and Conflict: The Influence of Attribution Theory on International Relations.
← Prev Next →