Yemen: The United States has unveiled its preparations for an upcoming battle in Yemen in an attempt to dissuade Sana'a forces from their stance with Gaza.

Lenderking stated that the (Houthi) attacks in the Red Sea will not lead to international recognition, an attempt to offer incentives to the Sana'a government. However, he ignored Sana'a's firm and central stance on the Palestinian cause, which it views as a religious doctrine, unlike other Arab and Islamic regimes that treat it politically.

In the interview, the American envoy failed in his political game, which he tried to push through Al Arabiya. After offering enticements, he resorted to indirect threats, pointing to U.S. support for the Presidential Leadership Council, hinting at escalating the war within Yemen by forces allied with Washington. These factions appear to have opened a direct line with the U.S., sidelining Saudi Arabia, which has led the aggression on Yemen since 2015.

Lenderking then shifted to blaming the Houthis for the stalled negotiations, claiming that their continued military operations in the Red Sea are the main obstacle to any progress.

He argued that the Houthi maritime escalation hampers the peace process and prevents any constructive negotiations from reaching tangible results. He then said that Yemen needs economic support, and stability in Yemen is essential—a justification reflecting the U.S. desire to use the economic file as leverage against Sana'a. 

He hinted that halting the maritime attacks might pave the way for economic improvements, but it also exposed U.S. ambitions to link military de-escalation with political and economic gains. Lenderking presented Sana'a with a choice: stop the maritime escalation or face the economic consequences.

What's notable is that this logic overlooks the broader truth that the events in the Red Sea are closely tied to ending the war in Gaza. Lenderking, in his remarks, also used intimidation tactics, warning that the cessation of Saudi airstrikes is a significant achievement that should not be sacrificed. In this context, he cautioned that the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea might lead to renewed escalation in the war, implicitly suggesting that continuing these operations risks reigniting the conflict that concerned parties have somewhat managed to de-escalate.

This warning clearly hints at the possibility of renewed military escalation if the maritime operations do not cease. This escalation threat is part of a U.S. strategy aimed at pressuring Sana'a to halt its Red Sea attacks, using the reduction in aerial tension as a bargaining chip.

These statements raise several questions about U.S. policy toward Yemen. It is evident that Washington finds itself in a complicated position in the ongoing maritime battle. Despite Lenderking's assertion that the U.S. has not lost this battle, his mention of several countries such as China, Russia, Jordan, Egypt, Djibouti, Ethiopia, and the UAE being affected by what is happening in the Red Sea implies a subtle weakness.

The message he intended to convey was that America is working with these nations to find solutions to calm the situation. However, between the lines, it seems the U.S. acknowledges that its own capabilities are insufficient to deter Sana'a's forces in the Red Sea.

What is surprising in Lenderking's remarks is the return to the narrative that Iran is supporting the Houthis, despite previous admissions by American officials that Iran cannot influence the Houthis. He contradicted himself by saying that Iran had failed to convince the Houthis, although it had tried. He added that the U.S. had worked through various channels, proposing suggestions to halt Houthi attacks, referring to mediators like Oman and China.

This contradiction seems to aim at justifying military and economic escalation while trying to convince the public that China and Russia can influence the Houthis more than Iran can. 

Amid all this, the United States appears to be floundering in the Red Sea without a clear direction, having become entangled in its aggression against Yemen. It now finds itself in a difficult, unenviable position, where its power has waned, and its strategies have weakened, like a bird that has lost its feathers and is struggling in a quagmire, while the complexities of the maritime battle, where Yemenis are excelling without exception, only grow deeper.