By Dr. Abdek Mahamoud Abdi

Introduction

Following American and Israeli strikes that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader on 28 February 2026, Iran’s naval forces have frequently declared the Strait of Hormuz closed, laid mines, and issued warnings that they would target unauthorized vessels. A ceasefire agreement on 14 June lasted only a few weeks. By late July, American strikes on Iran occurred almost every night, and tanker traffic through Hormuz had fallen well below pre-war levels. The Hormuz crisis has extended beyond the Gulf. On 20 July, the Houthis announced a naval blockade against Saudi Arabia, and two days later claimed responsibility for strikes on Saudi tankers, the Encelia and the Layla, in the Red Sea. Experts had long warned about this scenario. The simultaneous pressure on both chokepoints has now become a reality.

However, the focus on the Red Sea and Bab-el-Mandeb Strait mainly concerns conventional threats, such as anti-ship ballistic missiles, one-way attack drones, and waterborne explosive devices used by Houthi forces. Yet a lesser-discussed risk exists, which is diverting commercial radioactive material for use in a Radiological Dispersal Device, or dirty bomb. The security challenges in the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz, including radioactive cargo transportation, established smuggling networks, and limited naval resources, hinder the effectiveness of current maritime security measures.

Radiological Risk in Maritime Transport

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) classifies radioactive sources into five categories based on the potential harm they could cause if left unshielded. Category 1 and 2 sources, elements such as cobalt-60 and cesium-137 used in cancer treatment and industrial irradiators, could kill someone within minutes to hours of exposure.

According to a U.S. Government Accountability Office analysis of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (CWMD) risk assessments, Category 3 sources, commonly found in industrial gauges and well-logging equipment, are actually more likely to end up in a dirty bomb than Category 1 or 2 material. Not because they’re more dangerous, but because there are so many of them in ordinary commercial use, and the security around them is lighter. By contrast, Category 4 and 5 sources don’t have enough activity to pose much of a threat, even if fully dispersed. So when people talk about dirty bomb risk, the conversation should focus on Category 3.

The key concern, therefore, is not access to weapons-grade material but the possible misuse of legitimately used radioactive sources. From a security perspective, the consequences of such an incident could extend well beyond radiation exposure, potentially causing public panic, temporary disruption of affected areas, major economic losses, and costly decontamination operations. This disruption would result not from direct casualties but from strict international regulations and frameworks that require the immediate quarantine of any area with elevated radiation levels. Consequently, an attack targeting critical regional transport nodes would weaponize public anxiety to effectively paralyze maritime operations, transforming localized contamination into an indefinite, multi-billion-dollar trade bottleneck.

These sources are transported legally through the Red Sea corridor, including radiography equipment, well-logging tools, and medical isotopes destined for hospitals and industrial facilities across East Africa and the Middle East. That ordinary traffic is exactly what creates the opportunity for smugglers.

In the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s fast-attack vessels pose significant risks to maritime navigation. The ongoing conflict has escalated this threat into open hostilities, involving the placement of mines and direct attacks on tankers. In addition, Houthi attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea have created a parallel security challenge, forcing vessels to reroute and increasing pressure on maritime-security forces. The volatility of this environment makes the seizure of such radioactive materials a starkly real possibility.

Even if no party deliberately attempts to get these radioactive materials for a planned attack, a conventional missile or mine hitting a standard commercial vessel carrying legal Category 3 cargo could breach its containment hulls. This would spill radioactive material directly into open waters or vital harbor shipping lanes, creating localized environmental hazards and forcing immediate, long-term closures of strategic maritime routes due to contamination fears. These developments demonstrate how security pressures in the Gulf and the Horn of Africa can interact and compound vulnerabilities across interconnected maritime routes.

Potential Diversion Vulnerability and Consequences

Research into sanctions evasion has documented a so-called dark fleet of tankers, predominantly transporting Russian and Iranian oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG), that manipulate or deactivate their automatic identification system (AIS) transponders and follow irregular and complex ownership structures and routes to conceal their activity and destination details. Coupled with the dhow smuggling routes between Yemen and the Somali coast, monitored by UN authorities over several years as channels for arms delivery to Houthi forces, these networks could just as readily facilitate the movement of a stolen radioactive source as weapons. Although no such case has yet been identified, the conditions are conducive to this possibility. Oversight vulnerabilities and well-established smuggling routes abound, while coalition naval forces are stretched across two active fronts.

If a ship carrying legally declared Category 3 material were boarded, disabled, or hit, its cargo could vanish before anyone could establish a perimeter, especially since coast guards and coalition ships are already strained by the Hormuz crisis. Adding naval mines and loitering munitions in shallow, crowded waters raises the chances of a hull breach that could release radioactive cargo into a port or fishing area. This scenario directly aligns with Iran’s asymmetric maritime doctrine, which weaponizes key global shipping routes to compensate for its conventional military disadvantages. Tehran has explicitly demonstrated its intent to enforce total maritime leverage. Notably, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy recently reiterated its complete and decisive control over the Strait of Hormuz, warning that any vessel operating outside its authorized routes would face catastrophic consequences.

The IAEA monitors incidents involving nuclear and radioactive materials through its Incident and Trafficking Database. In 2025, 34 member states reported 236 incidents, up from 147 the previous year. The IAEA notes that most of this increase is due to late reports of older incidents, not an actual rise in trafficking, which is an important distinction when assessing trends. Since its inception in 1993, the database has recorded over 4,600 incidents, including about 730 involving theft or attempted theft. Importantly, approximately 55 percent of these thefts occurred during transport rather than storage.

Regarding the Red Sea specifically, the genuine threat does not lie in the possibility of Houthi-affiliated groups attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Such an endeavor necessitates resources and expertise that no non-state actor in the region currently possesses. The credible threat involves Houthi-affiliated groups, or other criminal networks operating within the same domain or zone, gaining access to an unsecured Category 1 to 3 radioactive source via channels already used for trafficking other illicit items. While the integration of radiological materials into maritime weaponry by Houthi forces remains an unverified capability, the operational motive and territorial precedents within the Yemeni conflict zone are well-established. Security assessments have long flagged the vulnerability of Yemen’s domestic infrastructure. As early as 2010, international intelligence raised alarms regarding the lack of physical security at a centralized Yemeni radiological facility which housed significant quantities of industrial and medical isotopes. This vulnerability underscored a persistent fear that non-state actors could seize localized commercial sources to fashion a radiological dispersal device (RDD).

The integration of such materials into naval mines or drone payloads would represent a significant development, signifying a shift from traditional sea-denial weaponry to the deliberate use of radiological contamination. To date, publicly available information does not confirm that this has been achieved. While not yet realized, the threat remains an area of grave concern, and should thus be communicated and addressed accordingly.

A radiological dispersal device detonated at key logistic regional hubs such as Djibouti or Jeddah would likely not result in a substantial number of fatalities directly attributable to radiation exposure. However, Djibouti serves as the operational logistics hub for foreign naval coalitions protecting the Bab-el-Mandeb and operating in the Red Sea, while Jeddah represents Saudi Arabia’s primary economic gateway on the Red Sea. Targeting these mega-terminals allows asymmetric actors to simultaneously disrupt U.S. military support and operations in the region, and inflict severe regional pressure. Consequently, it could nonetheless compel operators to suspend terminal operations for an extended period due to decontamination procedures, incurring costs to shipping, insurance, and regional commerce amounting to billions.

Recommendations for Radiological Maritime Security

Maritime security in the region remains predominantly focused on intercepting missiles and drones. There is limited insight into the actual movement of radioactive materials. The following three measures could help improve the current response to the crisis:

Expand radiation detection capabilities to smaller and informal ports. The United States National Nuclear Security Administration’s Megaports Initiative currently equips major seaports, including several in the Middle East, with radiation portal monitors and trained personnel. Extending similar coverage, including mobile units, to secondary ports in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, as well as dhow landing sites, would address a significant gap.

Enhance due diligence concerning the logistics of radioactive sources. Shipping and logistics companies operating in higher-risk jurisdictions should verify the recipients of Category 1 to 3 materials. This should build upon the cradle-to-grave principle outlined in the IAEA Code of Conduct, with support from the IAEA’s Division of Nuclear Security and its physical protection advisory missions where applicable.

Incorporate radiological threat scenarios into existing crisis planning. The Combined Maritime Forces, via Combined Task Force 153 in coordination with Operation Prosperity Guardian (a U.S.-led multinational coalition established to protect merchant shipping and counter asymmetric attacks in the Red Sea) and EUNAVFOR Operation Aspides, should incorporate defensive scenarios involving a radiological dispersal device (dirty bomb) into their maritime frameworks and joint exercises with regional states such as Djibouti, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. This proactive approach ensures the development of a response plan before an incident occurs

The Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz can no longer be evaluated solely in terms of missile, drone, or cyber risks. This conflict has already demonstrated that disruptions at one strategic chokepoint can spread to others. The Houthi blockade against Saudi shipping, which occurred within weeks of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, serves as evidence of this phenomenon. Diverting commercial radioactive materials would be a cost-effective and rational subsequent step within this pattern, even though such an action has not yet been undertaken.

For nations situated at this critical juncture, particularly Djibouti, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, developing a comprehensive radiological risk management framework is no longer a mere formality but an essential measure to ensure their national security and the continued operation of global maritime trade.

Dr. Abdek Mahamoud Abdi is an independent consultant in environmental and social safeguards, climate finance, blue economy and energy security, working across East Africa and the Middle East. He holds a Ph.D. in Global Engineering for Development, Environment and Society from the Tokyo Institute of Technology, with additional postgraduate certifications in nuclear safety, maritime environmental risk, and the blue economy.

Featured image: U.S. Marines and Sailors assigned to the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit transport a simulated casualty across the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer (LHD 4) during a chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear response drill while underway in the East China Sea, Oct. 5, 2024. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Luis Agostini)

By Frank Bell

Introduction

Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb occupy positions of strategic importance disproportionate to their size. Situated near the Strait of Hormuz, the three islands provide forward positions for surveillance, missiles, unmanned systems, and maritime interdiction. A territorial dispute dating back more than five decades has become part of the military architecture, and the ongoing war between the United States and Iran, surrounding one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints.

This creates a problem separate from sovereignty. If forces operating from disputed territory threaten commercial navigation or neighboring states during an armed conflict, destroying those forces may solve the immediate tactical problem without solving the longer-term security problem. Weapons can be replaced. Abandoned positions can be reoccupied. Suppression can interrupt coercion without eliminating the geographic advantage that made it possible.

The United States should degrade Iran’s ability to defend and employ Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb as military positions. Afterwards, an Arab-led coalition should temporarily administer and demilitarize the islands while U.S. military power remains available as an external deterrent. Such an arrangement could prevent the regeneration of Iranian maritime coercive capabilities without determining the islands’ ultimate sovereignty.

The purpose would be limited: pacify the islands without annexing them and create conditions under which responsibility for security in the Strait can pass to the regional states that depend upon it.

Geography, Sovereignty, and Militarization

The dispute over Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb predates the establishment of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 1971. Before federation, the individual emirates conducted their territorial affairs under British protection. Sharjah claimed Abu Musa, while Ras al-Khaimah claimed Greater and Lesser Tunb. Sharjah became one of the six founding emirates of the UAE on December 2, 1971; Ras al-Khaimah joined the federation the following year. The UAE subsequently inherited and has maintained those territorial claims.¹

The circumstances surrounding Iran’s assumption of control differed between Abu Musa and the Tunbs. As Britain prepared to end its treaty relationships with the Trucial States and withdraw its military presence from the Gulf, it sought settlements between Iran and the Arab rulers. Sharjah reached a last-minute memorandum of understanding with Iran concerning Abu Musa. Neither party surrendered its sovereignty claim, but the agreement permitted Iranian forces to occupy designated areas while Sharjah retained a presence on the island.²

No comparable agreement was reached over Greater and Lesser Tunb. On November 30, 1971, two days before the UAE was formally established, Iranian forces landed on the Tunbs after negotiations with Ras al-Khaimah failed. Armed resistance occurred on Greater Tunb and casualties resulted. Iran regarded the action as the restoration of Iranian sovereignty; the Arab side regarded it as a forcible seizure. Iran has controlled the islands since.³

The distinction remains important. Iran’s initial military presence on Abu Musa resulted from a negotiated arrangement that deliberately left sovereignty unresolved. Its control of Greater and Lesser Tunb followed military action without a comparable agreement with Ras al-Khaimah. Today, the UAE maintains the claims inherited through Sharjah and Ras al-Khaimah, while Iran claims sovereignty over all three islands.

Their contemporary strategic importance derives as much from geography as sovereignty. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has used the islands as military positions within Iran’s wider defense network surrounding Hormuz.⁴ Independent reporting has documented IRGC garrisons and military infrastructure on the islands, while recent U.S. military operations identified coastal-defense systems and cruise-missile storage and launch facilities on Greater Tunb among targets associated with threats to commercial navigation.⁵

This does not mean every component of Iran’s maritime-denial network is deployed on every island. Their significance comes from their contribution to a wider system of surveillance, missiles, unmanned systems, air defense, and maritime forces extending along Iran’s southern coast and into the approaches to Hormuz.

The three islands are also not identical military positions. Abu Musa is the most significant from a civilian standpoint, with a resident population generally estimated at around 2,000 alongside Iranian military facilities. Greater Tunb has a much smaller civilian footprint and an Iranian military presence, while Lesser Tunb is effectively a military outpost. Reliable public estimates of the current strength of the Iranian garrisons on the islands are scarce.⁶

That uncertainty matters in considering military options. Removing an isolated and degraded garrison presents a very different problem from assaulting intact defensive positions. Operations involving Abu Musa would also have to account for its civilian population. Intelligence on surviving forces, civilians, and island defenses would therefore shape how pacification was attempted.

The islands are thus two things at once: disputed territory whose sovereignty remains unresolved and military terrain capable of affecting international navigation. A workable policy must address the latter without pretending to resolve the former.

From Suppression to Pacification

Military action can destroy a missile launcher, radar installation, or drone facility. It cannot determine what happens to the position afterward.

If military infrastructure on the islands were neutralized during a wider conflict and Iranian forces subsequently returned, the problem could regenerate. New systems could replace those destroyed. Surveillance could resume. Fortifications could be rebuilt.

The policy question therefore extends beyond whether the islands constitute legitimate military targets during a conflict. It is what security arrangement should follow their neutralization. Simply destroying military installations provides suppression. It does not necessarily provide security.

Pacification describes the desired condition, not a prescribed method of assault. An opposed amphibious seizure by the United States should not be the automatic next step after strikes against the islands. Once a garrison has been isolated and its military capabilities sufficiently degraded, surviving personnel could first be offered an opportunity to surrender. If they refused, continued isolation, additional strikes, a raid, or ultimately seizure would remain options depending upon conditions at the time.

The distinction is important because territorial possession is not the strategic objective; denial of renewed military use is. Coalition forces do not require the islands as bases for further operations. The requirement is to remove the IRGC military presence and infrastructure and prevent the islands from again becoming forward positions for maritime coercion.

Temporary administration offers a middle course between restoring the military status quo and using military victory to impose a territorial settlement. Military systems could be removed or destroyed, remilitarization prohibited and monitored, and competing sovereignty claims preserved for peaceful resolution.

The strategic benefit is not simply the destruction of weapons. It is denying the positions from which those weapons can repeatedly return.

This also gives the operation an endpoint. Once the IRGC military presence has been removed, the islands demilitarized, and safeguards against renewed military use established, direct American control would be unnecessary. The result would be narrower than conquest but more durable than suppression.

Legal and Diplomatic Obstacles

The proposal carries substantial legal and diplomatic risks.

Iran exercises effective control over the islands while the UAE maintains sovereignty claims. A military operation followed by an externally imposed administration could be interpreted as an attempt to alter territorial control through force rather than as a limited maritime-security measure.

Any temporary authority would need narrow limits. Participation could not confer sovereignty. Existing territorial claims would remain intact. The authority would be responsible for security, demilitarization, essential civil functions, and protection of civilian property and economic activity.

Regional governments may support the security objective while remaining wary of any mechanism that appears to transfer disputed territory through military action. Legitimacy will depend heavily on Arab state participation, preservation of the competing sovereignty claims, and a credible endpoint.

Without that endpoint, temporary administration risks becoming occupation by another name.

Who Governs the Islands?

Several administrative models are possible, but replacing Iranian military control with indefinite American administration would defeat the purpose of the proposal.

United Nations administration would offer formal international legitimacy but could prove politically difficult to establish. A broader multinational coalition would provide greater operational flexibility, yet an administration dominated by outside powers could gradually assume the characteristics of an open-ended foreign occupation.

An Arab-led regional coalition deserves greater consideration. Gulf states could provide the principal administrative and security presence following demilitarization, supported where useful by international observers and technical personnel. No participating state would exercise sovereignty through the coalition, and any forces deployed on the islands would remain limited to security, monitoring, and enforcement of demilitarization.

The UAE would necessarily have an important role because of its sovereignty claims, but participation should not itself constitute recognition of those claims. Involving other Arab states would help distinguish regional security administration from simply transferring disputed territory from one claimant to another.

The underlying principle is straightforward: security on the Arab side of the Gulf should increasingly become an Arab responsibility. American military power should support regional security institutions rather than substitute for them indefinitely. An Arab-led coalition administering the islands, supported by regional maritime forces and backed by American deterrence, would reflect that division of responsibility.

The United States would not need to administer or permanently garrison the islands. Its more useful role would remain outside them. American naval and air forces operating in the wider region could provide intelligence, surveillance, logistics, and credible deterrence against remilitarization without transforming the islands into permanent American bases.

An Iranian attempt to return personnel and military equipment would therefore become a problem of detecting and denying remilitarization, rather than necessarily defending the islands against a conventional counter-invasion.

The coalition would administer and monitor the islands. Regional states would increasingly secure the surrounding maritime environment. American military power would remain available as a strategic backstop.

This arrangement offers an alternative to abandoning the islands after destroying their military infrastructure or turning a limited security operation into an indefinite American occupation.

The Strait After Pacification

The consequences would extend beyond the islands.

The Strait of Hormuz is both a military operating environment and a commercial artery. Changes in its security posture affect naval calculations, shipping schedules, chartering decisions, insurance premiums, energy markets, and perceptions of regional risk.

Removing offensive military infrastructure from forward positions could reduce one source of uncertainty confronting commercial operators. Demilitarization would not eliminate the wider risks of conflict with Iran or guarantee unrestricted navigation. It could, however, reduce the ability to use the islands for surveillance, interdiction, or attacks against maritime traffic.

Greater regional responsibility for maritime security need not mean American disengagement. U.S. naval power, intelligence, logistics, and deterrence would remain important, but in support. American military action would create the conditions for an Arab-led regional security arrangement rather than becoming the arrangement itself.

The islands’ eventual disposition could also reshape the longer-term balance of maritime influence within Hormuz, particularly by limiting the ability of any single coastal state—or combination of states—to impose unilateral conditions upon commercial transit. Decisions made during a conflict could influence the maritime balance for decades afterward.

How Does It End?

The credibility of temporary administration depends upon a simple question: temporary until when?

An arbitrary deadline says little about whether the security problem has been resolved. Termination should instead be conditions-based.

Those conditions could include removal of offensive military infrastructure, a durable monitoring regime, limitations on future military deployments, sufficient regional capacity to maintain the security arrangement, and an accepted diplomatic or legal process through which sovereignty claims can proceed without threatening freedom of navigation.

Once those conditions are satisfied, the temporary authority should leave.

The aim is not permanent foreign control or indefinite demilitarization enforced by American troops. Temporary administration provides a bridge between military action and political settlement.

Conclusion

Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb present a strategic problem that military strikes alone cannot resolve. Offensive systems can be destroyed and military forces removed, but neither action prevents strategically valuable positions from being rebuilt and used again.

Temporary administration offers one possible bridge between military necessity and political settlement. Properly structured, it would neither determine sovereignty nor require permanent American occupation. Its narrower purpose would be to deny renewed IRGC military use while shifting responsibility for the islands’ security toward regional states.

The larger principle extends beyond these islands. Military operations around strategic maritime chokepoints should be judged not only by whether they destroy an immediate threat, but by whether the security arrangement that follows prevents that threat from returning.

If cleared during military operations in support of its war against Iran, the Tunbs and Abu Musa should not become permanent American positions, nor should their ultimate ownership be decided by the United States.

The objective is to pacify the positions, secure the maritime approaches, transfer responsibility to a sustainable Arab-led regional security arrangement, and leave sovereignty to diplomacy.

In that sense, these small islands could become stepping stones—not toward occupation, but toward a more durable security order in the Strait of Hormuz.

Francis J. Bell is a graduate of Temple University’s Fox School of Business. He works as a private consultant with interests in strategy and international security. His writing focuses on maritime doctrine, deterrence, and emerging operational concepts.

References

1. United Arab Emirates, “Letter dated 23 October 2014 from the Permanent Representative of the United Arab Emirates to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General,” S/2014/759, October 24, 2014; United Arab Emirates, “Letter dated 14 March 2016 from the Permanent Representative of the United Arab Emirates to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General,” S/2016/245, March 16, 2016. The UAE communications maintain the claims to Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb and describe the historical claims of Sharjah and Ras al-Khaimah.

2. U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, vol. XXIV, Middle East Region and Arabian Peninsula, 1969–1972; Jordan, September 1970, documents concerning British negotiations over Abu Musa and the Tunbs; United Arab Emirates, “Letter dated 23 October 2014,” S/2014/759. The latter reproduces the 1971 Memorandum of Understanding concerning Abu Musa, which preserved the competing claims while providing for an Iranian military presence in designated areas. Contemporary U.S. diplomatic records show Britain pressing Sharjah and Ras al Khaimah to reach accommodations with Iran before British withdrawal.

3. U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, vol. XXIV, documents concerning the Persian Gulf islands dispute, 1971; United Arab Emirates, “Letter dated 23 October 2014,” S/2014/759. Contemporary diplomatic records document the failure to obtain an agreement over the Tunbs and Britain’s inability to compel Ras al Khaimah to relinquish its claim.

4. Jon Gambrell, “3 Islands Help Control Access to the Strait of Hormuz. They’re in the Crosshairs of the Iran War,” Associated Press, July 16, 2026. Gambrell describes Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps garrisons and military infrastructure on the islands, including missiles, fast boats, and air-defense systems on Abu Musa and Greater Tunb and a military presence on Lesser Tunb.

5. U.S. Central Command Public Affairs, “CENTCOM Conducts Morning Round of Strikes Against Iran,” Defense Visual Information Distribution Service, July 15, 2026. CENTCOM reported using precision munitions against coastal-defense systems and cruise-missile storage and launch sites on Greater Tunb and stated that the strikes were intended to degrade Iran’s ability to attack commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

6. Gambrell, “3 Islands Help Control Access to the Strait of Hormuz.” Recent reporting describes Abu Musa as containing a village alongside a substantial IRGC base, Greater Tunb as possessing comparable Iranian military infrastructure, and Lesser Tunb as having only a military presence. Reliable open-source estimates of current garrison strength remain limited.

Featured image: Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb and the surrounding maritime approaches. Author-generated illustration created using multiple geographic references. Not for navigation. (Courtesy of Frank Bell)

By Matt Reisener

Since October 2023, the Houthis, a Yemeni rebel group that seized control over much of the country over a decade ago, have waged a campaign against shipping vessels in the Red Sea, Bab al-Mandab Strait, and Gulf of Aden, attacking over 100 commercial maritime vessels. The Houthis have long cited Israel’s war in Gaza as the raison d’être for its campaign, claiming that the attacks on Israeli ships or any vessels conducting business at Israeli ports are intended to punish Israel for its role in the conflict. However, in the wake of the recent ceasefire in Gaza, one might reasonably expect these attacks to end, particularly since there has already been a decrease in the number of attacks conducted since the Houthis’ May 2025 agreement with the US to avoid targeting American vessels in exchange for an end to US airstrikes on Yemen. Houthi leader Abdul-Malik al-Houthi reportedly ordered a cessation of attacks on ships flying the Israeli flag or docking at Israeli ports, and the group’s message to Hamas’ Qassam Brigades indicating that its campaign against Israel is on hold has been interpreted by some as a sign that the Houthis are shifting their focus away from the Red Sea.

An end to Houthi attacks in the Red Sea would be a welcome development given how disruptive the campaign has been to global commerce. Traffic through the Suez Canal has decreased by roughly 50% due to concerns that ships will be targeted in the Red Sea. Many vessels have instead chosen to sail around the Cape of Good Hope, adding significant time and expense to their journeys and contributing to global inflation. Given that as much as 15% of global trade and 30% of global container traffic transits the Suez Canal yearly, the global impact of the Houthi attacks cannot be understated.

However, the Gaza ceasefire may not herald the return of safe and stable maritime commerce in the Red Sea. The ceasefire remains tenuous in the wake of Hamas’ attempt to reassert control in pockets of Gaza City, both sides have already accused the other of violating the agreement. Countless potential pitfalls remain on the path to a permanent peace which could easily prompt the resumption of hostilities, including the return of the remains of the outstanding Israeli hostages, fate of Hamas, and Israel’s willingness to accept a Palestinian state. Even then, a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Gaza may be insufficient to permanently end the Houthis’ maritime attacks. The reason for this speaks to the Houthis’ underlying motivations behind their efforts to disrupt Red Sea commerce, which go beyond the group’s stated intent to destroy Israel and support the Palestinian cause.

The Houthis’ Red Sea attacks are primarily intended to address the legitimacy crises the group faces both domestically and abroad. While the Houthis succeeded in capturing Yemen’s capital city of Sana’a and forced the resignation of then-President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, the group remains opposed by Yemen’s internationally recognized government and other armed groups such as the Southern Transitional Council and Yemeni National Resistance which control significant swaths of territory within the country. Within Houthi-controlled territory, the group remains unpopular with much of the population due to its imposition of restrictive social control measures, the poor state of Yemen’s economy, endemic government corruption, and the Houthis’ struggles to pay public sector salaries. Internationally, Iran is the only country to recognize the Houthis as the legitimate ruling government of Yemen, and the group has been diplomatically and economically isolated from most of the global community.

Through this lens, the group’s campaign in the Red Sea can perhaps best be viewed as an effort to strengthen the image of the Houthis as a fully functional governing entity and a powerful geopolitical force capable of waging war against regional and global powers and single-handedly disrupting global commerce. While Houthi attempts at striking the Israeli mainland have been largely unsuccessful, the group identified attacks against maritime vessels as a more achievable means of inserting themselves into the broader conflict against Israel while also elevating their global threat profile. This interpretation is further supported by the Houthis’ decision to offer “safe transit” waivers to ships hoping to transit the Red Sea without being targeted. To the Houthis, every shipping company that applies for such a waiver helps cement the perception of the Houthis as a legitimate governing authority. Similarly, securing a peace agreement with the United States served as a significant propaganda win for the Houthis, allowing them to portray themselves as a peer competitor of the Americans capable of inflicting enough damage on US interests to necessitate such a deal.

While the Houthis’ embrace of the Gaza War cause is consistent with the group’s prevailing pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli beliefs, the Houthis also had several strategic reasons to tie their Red Sea campaign to this conflict. First, Houthi involvement in the Gaza War is one of the few policies undertaken by the group that has been widely popular due to the Yemeni public’s widespread opposition to Israel. While 2024 polling from the Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies shows that the Houthis themselves remain unpopular in Yemen, it also shows that the attacks themselves have produced positive feelings among Yemenis living in areas of Houthi, government, and divided control. These maritime attacks lend credibility to the Houthis’ claims that they are waging war in support of Palestine on behalf of the Yemeni people, while Yemen’s internationally recognized government has been largely unable to criticize the Houthi campaign since doing so would lend credence to the Houthis’ portrayal of this government as a Western-backed puppet that represents foreign rather than domestic interests. The attacks have also been a boon for recruitment to the Houthi cause. The UN estimates that the number of Houthi fighters increased from 220,000 in 2022 to 350,000 in 2024, and successful propaganda campaigns centered around the Houthis’ war against Israel served a major driver of this increased recruitment. Every successful strike and foreign retaliation against the Yemeni homeland in response to these attacks risks producing a rally-around-the-flag effect that engenders greater public sympathy.

Additionally, the Houthis’ embrace of the Palestinian cause as a justification for its Red Sea attacks has helped deepen its partnership with Iran. Despite the Houthis’ growing capacity to manufacture weapons domestically, Iran remains an invaluable patron for the Houthis which has continued to supply the group with munitions, as evidenced by the Yemeni National Resistance Force’s interception of over 750 tons of Yemen-bound Iranian weapons in July. Iran’s arming of the Houthis was originally intended to oppose the Saudi-led coalition’s efforts to topple the group and prevent Yemen from becoming a proxy state of Iran’s geopolitical adversaries. However, the Houthis’ willingness to wade into the Gaza conflict in opposition to another of Iran’s primary adversaries (Israel) has helped establish the Houthis as a reliable partner worthy of continued support at a time when Iran’s regional proxy network has been significantly degraded following its disastrous Twelve-Day War against Israel.

Furthermore, the Houthis have used the Gaza War as cover for their Red Sea attacks in part to undermine public perceptions of other regional Arab powers. While countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE are ostensibly supportive of the Palestinian cause, the Houthis have repeatedly highlighted that these states have proven unwilling to match that support with military action, drawing favorable contrasts between this perceived inaction and the Houthis’ successful maritime campaign. In doing so, the Houthis have sought to weaken regional opinion of the countries which once actively worked to topple them after their capture of Sana’a.

While the Houthis’ embrace of the Palestinian cause has been largely successful for the group, there is reason to believe they will continue to target commercial shipping interests in the Red Sea even if the conflict in Gaza remains frozen. First, the Houthis could continue to shift the goalposts on their justification for targeting vessels in the Red Sea in opposition to Israel. The road to peace between Israel and the Palestinians will be full of stops and starts, and the Houthis can weaponize each roadblock as a sign of Israeli aggression and resume their Red Sea attacks.

Should the fragile peace in Gaza hold, the Houthis could also adopt the United States as the primary public face of its Red Sea campaign, drawing on the broad unpopularity of the US among Yemenis in the wake of America’s lengthy drone campaign against extremist groups in Yemen. The aforementioned US-Houthi détente may be insufficient to deter future attacks, as evidenced by the Houthis’ March 2024 attack on a Chinese ship despite making similar promises to avoid targeting their vessels. The Houthis’ decades of insurgency experience have made them adept at surviving airstrikes while preserving their ability to conduct maritime attacks. This is not to say that airstrikes against the Houthis have been wholly ineffective. The strikes launched by the US this spring inflicted over $1 billion in damage, killed several prominent Houthi figures, and played a role in bringing the Houthis to the negotiating table, and a recent Israeli strike succeeded in killing Houthi military leader Muhammad Abdul Karim al-Ghamari. However, the Houthis may calculate that they would gain more militarily from the increase in aid they would receive from Iran if they began attacking ships which have made port calls to the United States than they would lose as a result of retaliatory American strikes, especially since such strikes would further encourage more disaffected young men to join the Houthi cause.

Finally, the Houthis’ growing proficiency in carrying out Red Sea attacks may embolden them to continue these efforts. The Houthis have increased their coordination with both the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Somali extremist group Al Shabaab in recent months. Greater cooperation with these groups could allow the Houthis to extend the range of ships they are able to target in the region and add further risk to ships hoping to hug the coast of Africa to avoid attacks, while also providing the Houthis with additional sources of regional intelligence and material support. Rather than relying exclusively on long-range munitions to harass their targets, recent attacks have also shown the Houthis adopting a greater variety of tactics, including using a combination of both remotely operated ships and vessels crewed by combatants who boarded and planted explosive devices on ships. These tactics suggest that the Houthis can continue harassing ships in the region even if the group’s supply of missiles and drones begins to dry up.

While Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and adjoining waterways may wax and wane in the coming months, safe transit through the Red Sea is unlikely to become a reality in the foreseeable future. The Houthis’ Red Sea campaign is not intrinsically linked to the Gaza conflict and may therefore continue even if that war ends peacefully. The Houthis will likely continue to use these attacks as a leverage point to press for more favorable final-status peace negotiations with both Saudi Arabia and Yemen’s internationally recognized government to help secure them a more advantageous political position in Yemen moving forward. Only an end to the decades-long conflict between the Houthis and their enemies within Yemen will bring an end to the group’s efforts to disrupt maritime commerce in the region.

By Jeffrey Payne

Despite rumors to the contrary, the United States is not interested in disengaging from the Middle East. The Indo-Pacific is the new focal point of U.S. foreign policy, but the Middle East remains essential for U.S. interests. However, current patterns of interaction between the United States and its Middle Eastern partners are tied to routines that were hardened during the Global War on Terror. While these routines have proven difficult to escape and a source of political divergence at times, the reality today is that U.S. priorities are more disparate globally—and U.S. presence in the region should not remain locked within previous formulas.

The perception of a U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East is partially due to the absence of refined U.S. priorities in the region. Among the myriad of elements defining U.S. engagement in the Middle East, U.S. naval presence in the Gulf remains essential not only for U.S. interests but also the interests of its regional partners. However, the Red and Arabian Seas are becoming more challenging security environments, and the larger Indian Ocean region provides the logic for why these waters should become the focus of U.S. maritime operations and security cooperation in the broader Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.

From the Hormuz to the Bab-al-Mandeb

Middle Eastern waters feature two of the world’s critical maritime chokepoints: the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab-al-Mandeb. One-third of the world’s oil and other resources are transported through the Strait of Hormuz and continue on through the Bab-al-Mandeb if bound for Europe or beyond. Security of both chokepoints is critical for global commerce, of which the U.S. is a key provider. Yet, among U.S. policymakers, the Strait of Hormuz has taken priority. As a result, much of U.S. naval presence and forward basing is focused there.

U.S. presence in the Gulf developed primarily for economic reasons. A reliance on the Middle East’s natural resources for domestic consumption encouraged the United States to ensure regional stability to the greatest extent possible. This led to closer relationships with Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other Gulf States, in addition to strong ties with other regional powers, such as Egypt and Israel. The asymmetric elements of Iran’s foreign policy, intent on spreading its influence and destabilizing the larger region, reinforced the need for U.S. presence in the Gulf.

Today, different variables are present. U.S. reliance on the region’s natural resources is diminished, regional partners have enjoyed decades of security assistance and technical training assistance in shaping their militaries, and, most importantly, the security challenges in the Red and Arabian Seas are expanding. The increased number and sophistication of non-state illicit actors in the waters surrounding the Bab al-Mandeb, and the increased involvement of prominent competitors in the region, means that the United States should no longer prioritize the Gulf above other regional concerns.

To be clear, Gulf security remains a priority of U.S. foreign policy, and the continuation of lines of communication out of the Strait of Hormuz still matter a great deal. However, the concentration of U.S. naval attention should shift further southwest to the Red and Arabian Seas. The Bab-al-Mandeb in particular requires greater attention as the connecting waterway between these two seas.

A Focus on the Bab-al-Mandeb Region

Due to the sheer scale of our oceans and maritime spaces, and the rules, norms, and international laws that govern the activities of both commercial and military vessels, there is no actor with enough influence, power, or vision to provide maritime security alone. Maritime security is a cooperative endeavor, premised on the legacy of responding to another vessel in distress when at sea. The more actors with eyes glancing toward the horizon and sharing what they see with each other, the more likely that threats can be recognized and confronted.

An increasing number of competitors are operating in the Bab-al-Mandeb region. China’s economic interests in Africa, which have exploded in scale and depth over the past fifteen years, precipitated the deployment of People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) vessels to the Arabian Sea. For 14 years, PLAN vessels have protected Chinese-flagged vessels sailing through the Indian Ocean, gaining operational familiarity with the region’s waters and bypassing existing international cooperative efforts. The completion of China’s first overseas base, a dual-use facility located in Djibouti, signals China’s interests in these waters.

In addition to China, Russia, despite its warmongering in Ukraine, is intent on maintaining, if not increasing, its naval presence in the Red Sea. Moscow does not have the naval depth to match U.S. or even Chinese presence, but it still desires the capacity to reach these waters if for no other reason than to serve as a spoiler for efforts deemed divergent from Moscow’s interests. Smaller regional powers are also keenly invested in deepening their familiarity with, and deploying their own forces to, the Red and Arabian Seas. These regional players include obvious actors, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but also the UAE, Iran, and Turkey.

Piracy ushered in a period where regional waters facilitated the expansion of transnational crime. The Bab-al-Mandeb is now increasingly congested, and bad actors sail amidst the crowd routinely. The Red and Arabian Seas feature some of the most complex smuggling and illicit operations in the world. Instability on both shores of the Red Sea has enabled these operators. From illicitly-traded legal commodities to narcotics, arms, and human beings, these waters shroud substantial criminality. When illegal fishing and violent extremist organizations are added to this criminal patchwork, the scale of the problem becomes enormous.

The above points highlight why U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT) should direct greater attention towards the Red and Arabian Seas, as should regionally-stationed U.S. Coast Guard assets. The trends point to these waters becoming far more critical in the years to come. U.S. Fifth Fleet has immense local knowledge, learned in partnership with regional navies and coast guards, which it can bring to the forefront. The U.S. Navy’s technical expertise and hands-on experience building naval partnerships can assist littoral states in building the connective tissue necessary to respond to everything from hostile state actors to criminal cartels.

A focus away from the Gulf itself would inflict political hurdles, but diplomatic outreach would assist in leaping them. NAVCENT would have to further coordinate with United States Naval Forces Europe-Africa, but that would prove advantageous in the long run despite any initial bureaucratic friction. The U.S. Navy would also have to redefine operational routines away from a traditional/non-traditional binary, as the set of challenges in these waters do not conform to such thinking. In doing so, the United States would start a new chapter of engagement and security cooperation in the region.

Conclusion 

The perception that the United States is moving away from the Middle East is false, but part of the reason for this perception is that U.S. engagement in the region has not yet visibly evolved beyond the Global War on Terror and its emphasis on Gulf security. The United States should refine its priorities in the broader MENA region, diversifying its maritime operations and security cooperation beyond the Gulf to the Red and Arabian Seas. While NAVCENT is already enhancing its presence in these waters, more remains to be done. The waters near the Bab-al-Mandeb in particular feature some of the most complex maritime challenges, and the U.S. Navy must face them head on.

Jeffrey Payne is an Assistant Professor at the Near East South Asia (NESA) Center for Strategic Studies in Washington, DC. The views expressed in this article are his alone and do not represent the official policy or position of the NESA Center, the U.S. Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Featured Image: The amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge sails in front of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier on May 17, 2019, in the Arabian Sea (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Brian M. Wilbur)