Saudi Arabia appears clearly provoked by the Houthi movement. Within a single day, Saudi forces launched 103 airstrikes against Houthi targets. According to a report by Russian news agency TASS on November 10, following the Houthis’ demand for $5.1 billion in compensation for years of blockade-related losses and their formal recognition of Houthi authority in Yemen, Saudi Arabia responded with military action. The Houthis stated that over the past 24 hours, Saudi warplanes conducted 103 strikes across six provinces in Yemen.
Targets included Marib, Saada, Hudaydah, Taiz, Lahij, and Al-Jawf. From Saudi Arabia’s perspective, the Houthis’ demands were perceived as unacceptable—indeed, an affront to national dignity. In response, Riyadh resorted to aerial bombardment. To Saudi officials, the requested sum represented an exorbitant price tag. Granting such terms would not only undermine national prestige but also set a precedent that could invite further demands.
If tensions flare again, the Houthis may resort to similar tactics. Moreover, acceding to these demands risks creating a dangerous precedent: appeasing a militant group only emboldens it. Over time, the appetite of such actors tends to grow rather than diminish. Geopolitically, recognizing Houthi control would place Saudi Arabia between two hostile forces—Iran and the Houthis—undermining its strategic position. Furthermore, with pro-Saudi factions still active within Yemen, any reversal in Riyadh’s stance would likely erode trust among potential allies.
Thus, Saudi Arabia’s decision to respond militarily carries a degree of strategic logic. Yet the challenge remains clear: Saudi forces cannot decisively eliminate the Houthi threat. Meanwhile, ongoing attacks by the Houthis continue to inflict measurable economic damage on Saudi infrastructure. In prior incidents, Houthi forces targeted key oil pipelines in Saudi Arabia, demonstrating their capacity for retaliation. Both sides remain entrenched in a costly and unsustainable conflict. A ceasefire would benefit both parties, yet fundamental differences in core demands prevent meaningful negotiations from progressing.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1881439295370251/
Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of the author.