With Hezbollah tremendously degraded, Hamas largely defanged, and Syria decapitated, Israeli leaders are now grappling with Houthis, who continue to fire ballistic missiles and drones at Israel.
How to deter them?
One way might be by intensifying the attacks on their assets, as Israel has already done on several occasions.
Another would be to strike Iran, the sponsor of this fanatical Shia terrorist entity. And a third path would be to build a global coalition – including Saudi Arabia and the UAE – to take them on, because the Houthi targeting Red Sea shipping since October 7 is not only a threat to Israel but to the world.
There is not one silver bullet that will end the threat of the Houthis, who have demonstrated a high pain tolerance and have proven themselves quite resilient since bursting onto the scene as a major player in the middle of the last decade and since taking over a good part of Yemen.
Deterring the Houthis will take a multi-pronged approach.
One of the prongs, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar made clear on Tuesday, is to get more countries in the world to recognize the Houthis as an international terrorist organization.
The Foreign Ministry issued a statement on Wednesday saying that following the continuous Houthi attacks – yet another ballistic missile was fired Tuesday morning but was successfully intercepted – Sa’ar instructed Israel’s diplomats in Europe to work towards getting the Houthis recognized by as many governments as possible as a terrorist organization.
“The Houthis pose a threat not only to Israel but to the region and the entire world,” he said.
“The direct threat to freedom of navigation in one of the busiest maritime routes globally is a challenge to the international community and the world order. The most basic and fundamental step is to designate them as a terrorist organization.”
State, not a non-state sector
Sa’ar’s step is interesting, considering there is another school of thought regarding how to deal with the Houthis, one advocated by former National Security Council head Giora Eiland: treat them as a state, not a non-state actor.
Eiland said in an interview on Kan Bet that Israel should say it is at war with the state of Yemen, not “just” a terrorist organization. According to Eiland, although the Houthis do not control all of Yemen, they control a large enough part of it, including the capital of Sanaa and the country’s main port, to be considered the state of Yemen.
Why does semantics matter here? Because when waging war against a terrorist organization or non-state actors, a country is limited in its targets. But waging war against a state would allow Israel to invoke traditional laws of war, potentially legitimizing broader military actions such as blockades or strikes on state infrastructure, rather than limited counterterrorism measures.
This framing would influence the country’s military strategy by shifting from counterterrorism operations to broader state-level warfare, including attacking Yemen’s supply chains.
These actions would aim to degrade Yemen’s state-level capabilities rather than focusing solely on Houthi leadership – something Israel has not done yet – or its weapons systems. However, there is a risk involved: escalating the conflict and drawing in other players – such as Iran. And that is what makes the choice of framing a significant decision.
There are also profound regional implications. Labeling the Houthis as a terrorist organization would better suit the interests of Gulf States like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who view the Houthis as a direct threat and who themselves have fought them.
A declaration of war against Yemen, however, could complicate matters, as the UAE and the Saudis would likely find it harder to support an outright war against a neighboring Arab state. A war against a terrorist organization fueled by an extreme Shia ideology and backed by Iran is one thing, but fighting a sovereign Arab state would be something different entirely.
Framing the Houthis as a terrorist organization aligns with Israel’s broader narrative of combating Iranian proxies, likely to resonate with international audiences more attuned to the global threat posed by terrorism. However, framing them as a state risks alienating allies who are reluctant to be drawn into a war with Yemen.
In addition, saying this is a war against a terrorist organization could potentially strengthen the position of Yemen’s internationally recognized government in its fight against the Houthis, whereas saying it is a war against Yemen could inadvertently legitimize Houthi control of larger parts of Yemen.
Upgrading the Houthis from a terrorist group to the State of Yemen could grant them more authority in peace negotiations and international forums. It could also lead to the establishment of formal diplomatic relations with other countries, changing the nature of international engagement with Yemen.
This recognition could undermine the authority of the internationally recognized government in the interim capital of Aden and give the Houthis more leverage in the peace negotiations to permanently end Yemen’s civil war.
There are pros and cons to framing Israel’s fight as being against the Houthis specifically or the de facto state of Yemen. Sa’ar’s directive for Israeli diplomats in Europe to lobby their host nations to designate the Houthis as a terrorist organization suggests that Jerusalem has made its choice.
However, this decision is far more than a matter of semantics; it is a strategic calculation with significant military, diplomatic, and regional implications.