The Lawfare Podcast: Archive Episode Summary Episode: Greg Johnson and Scott Anderson on the Fight Against the Houthis
Release Date: May 3, 2025
Host: Greg Johnson, Matt Gluck

Introduction

In this archived episode of The Lawfare Podcast, host Matt Gluck engages with Gregory Johnson, Research Fellow at Lawfare, and Scott Anderson, Senior Editor at Lawfare, to dissect the escalating conflict between the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Houthi movement in Yemen. Released on May 3, 2025, the discussion revisits a crucial episode from January 16, 2024, providing timely insights into the ongoing struggle in the Red Sea region.

Background on Houthi Attacks

The conversation begins with Matt Gluck setting the stage for listeners:

Matt Gluck [04:36]: "Last night, the U.S. and the UK carried out airstrikes in Yemen against the Houthis in retaliation for their attacks on commercial shipping through the Red Sea."

Since October 2023, the US has executed over 800 airstrikes targeting Houthi positions. The Houthis have retaliated by downing US surveillance drones and damaging military assets, including a $60 million Navy fighter jet. These hostilities have significantly disrupted global shipping lanes, particularly in the strategic Bab el Mandab Strait.

US and UK Response

Gregory Johnson elaborates on the intensity and implications of the US-UK joint strike:

Gregory Johnson [05:41]: "Following a large-scale Houthi attack on US and British ships, the US and UK launched over 150 munitions targeting almost 30 Houthi sites in Yemen."

This marked the first major offensive against the Houthis since President Trump's tenure. The strikes aimed to degrade the Houthis' operational capabilities and deter future attacks, signaling a robust US commitment to safeguarding international shipping routes.

Legal Justifications: Domestic and International Law

A significant portion of the discussion delves into the legal frameworks underpinning the US and UK military actions.

Domestic Law

Scott Anderson provides a comprehensive analysis of the domestic legal justifications:

Scott Anderson [05:58]: "The most likely legal basis for these strikes is President Biden's inherent constitutional authority under Article II, as there's no specific statutory authorization from Congress."

Anderson contrasts this with previous conflicts where the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) were invoked, noting that such statutes are less applicable to actions against the Houthis.

International Law

The conversation shifts to international law, with Anderson explaining the self-defense rationale:

Scott Anderson [09:01]: "International law allows for military self-defense when faced with an armed attack or imminent threat by a hostile actor, whether it's a non-state group like the Houthis or a state."

He discusses the nuances of engaging a non-state actor and the potential invocation of collective self-defense if other nations' vessels are targeted. The anticipated filing of Article 51 letters to the UN Security Council is highlighted as a forthcoming step in legitimizing the actions under international law.

US Political Calculus and War Powers

The episode navigates the complex political landscape surrounding military interventions.

Executive Branch Authority

Anderson discusses the President's discretion under the War Powers Resolution:

Scott Anderson [39:29]: "The War Powers Resolution allows the President to engage in military action for 60 days without congressional authorization, with an additional 30-day withdrawal period."

He notes the Executive Branch's tendency to interpret these provisions flexibly, often categorizing military actions as isolated incidents to reset the War Powers clock.

Congressional Reactions

Scott Anderson outlines the spectrum of Congressional responses:

Scott Anderson [34:59]: "While many members of Congress support the strikes, some accuse the Biden administration of overstepping its authority by not seeking congressional approval."

Despite criticisms, Anderson points out the longstanding precedent of executive actions in military matters without direct Congressional consent, citing the limited effectiveness of Congressional constraints in practice.

Impact on Global Trade

Gregory Johnson raises concerns about the broader implications for international commerce:

Gregory Johnson [33:04]: "Approximately 12 to 18% of global shipping transits through the Red Sea, and the Houthis' actions are forcing ships to reroute around Africa, leading to delays and increased costs."

Matt Gluck adds:

Matt Gluck [33:30]: "While there have been minimal delays so far, the potential for significant disruptions looms, especially if the Houthis escalate their targeting to include oil tankers."

These disruptions threaten global supply chains, affecting everything from consumer goods to energy markets.

Comparison to 2015 Saudi Intervention

Drawing parallels to historical events, Matt Gluck compares the current US strategy to Saudi Arabia's intervention in Yemen in 2015:

Matt Gluck [46:43]: "Back in 2015, Saudi Arabia believed it could swiftly expel the Houthis from Sana'a with airstrikes alone, expecting to achieve this in six weeks. Nine years later, the conflict remains unresolved."

Gluck expresses skepticism about the efficacy of repeated airstrikes:

Matt Gluck [51:25]: "The Houthis have adapted to prolonged airstrikes over the past decade, making them resilient adversaries capable of sustaining their operations despite military pressure."

This analogy underscores the challenges the US faces in achieving its objectives without a clear, comprehensive strategy.

Conclusions and Future Outlook

The episode concludes with reflections on the sustainability and potential outcomes of the US and UK military strategies:

Matt Gluck [52:51]: "The Houthis are prepared to absorb more airstrikes, believing that enduring these attacks will strengthen their position both domestically and regionally."

Scott Anderson adds:

Scott Anderson [25:25]: "The administration aims to degrade the Houthis' operational capabilities strategically, acknowledging that military force alone won't provide a complete solution."

Both experts agree that without a nuanced approach combining military action with diplomatic efforts, the cycle of retaliation may persist, leading to an entrenched conflict with limited prospects for resolution.

Key Takeaways

• Legal Foundations: The US and UK justify the strikes primarily under the President's inherent Article II authority, invoking self-defense in response to Houthi attacks.

• War Powers Dynamics: The Executive Branch continues to leverage flexible interpretations of the War Powers Resolution to conduct military operations without explicit Congressional authorization.

• Economic Implications: Houthi attacks threaten significant portions of global shipping, with potential widespread economic repercussions if disruptions escalate.

• Strategic Parallels: Historical comparisons to the 2015 Saudi intervention highlight the potential pitfalls of relying heavily on airstrikes without a clear endgame strategy.

• Future Challenges: The enduring resilience of the Houthis suggests that without a multifaceted approach, military actions may not achieve the desired deterrent effect, potentially leading to prolonged hostilities.

This archived episode provides a thorough analysis of the complex interplay between legal authority, military strategy, and geopolitical consequences in the context of the US and UK operations against the Houthi movement in Yemen. For those seeking to understand the intricacies of modern conflict management and international law, this discussion offers valuable perspectives and foresight into potential future developments.