Reshuffling Cards: Trump and Netanyahu’s Nightmare

(Crossfirearabia.com) – Benjamin Netanyahu hadn’t finished patting himself on the back for destroying the Sanaa International Airport – after all Israeli warplanes hit the country twice in less than 24 hours – before US President Donald Trump dramatically announced he had just reached a deal with the Houthis to stop striking Yemen. Shock, surprise, horror!

Trump added the Houthis promised in turn they would halt targeting all ships, including US vassals and tankers entering the world-trade-crucial Bab El Mandeb Straits, the Red Sea and presumably the Arabian Sea, just off the tip of the country in the south.

Thus, in one full swoop and at a strike of a pen, the war between the US and the Houthis, started in earnest since 15 March had come to an end in a mesmerizing fashion. During this time, the Americans had made at least a total of 1300 air-raids on Yemen in a bid to end the Houthis who had been striking Israel with ballistic missiles on a regular basis since 7 October, 2023 when Israel started bombarding Gaza.

The country that was behind the deal was Oman who had indeed announced, Tuesday, that an agreement between the United States and the Houthis, the effective but not internationally recognized government in Yemen, was reached to stop the war.

Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said in a statement on X that: “Following recent discussions and contacts conducted by the Sultanate of Oman with the United States and the relevant authorities in Sana’a, in the Republic of Yemen, with the aim of de-escalation, efforts have resulted in a ceasefire agreement between the two sides,” as carried by Anadolu.

Analysts since suggested that the deal was reached because the two sides had wanted to end the open-ended escalation that was proving very costly not least of all to the United States which hiked the US treasury bill to about $1 billion dollars since its campaign, mostly to support Israel, in less than one month of military action.

The Houthis on the other hand didn’t want to fight on two fronts, the Americans and the Israelis. For them ending one front was perfectly logical to focus on strikes against Israel in a bid to end the latter’s war on Gaza, and which Israel has promised to step up soon and added to the misery and genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.

In agreeing to stop attacking shipping in the area they were of the firm belief that Trump had not meant that no firing against Israel as part of the deal which meant they would continue to strike Jewish cities, airports areas and military installations, more than 2000 kilometers away, until Israel ends its war on Gaza.

It is still too early to read into how things will unfold, especially since Trump is coming to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf in mid-May, but everyone is seeing the deal as creating a wedge between the US-Israeli alliance on matters relating to US security in the region and especially on the Iran nuclear file, where incessant negotiations – now in their third and fourth rounds -are taking place for the first time between Washington and Tehran in Muscat and through an Omani team lead by their formidable Omani Foreign Minister Albusaidi as mediator.

These are developments that are clearly upsetting Netanyahu who is dead against any nuclear deal that may be reached between the White House and Tehran and wants to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities regardless of the dangerous consequences. But this is seen as a critical line between Trump and Netanyahu while the former is determined to initial a new nuclear deal which he would see as a great US success and for his diplomacy in checking Iran’s nuclear weapon.

International issues as they stand are still fluid for Trump is looking for certain objectives most of all includes his slogan of “Make America Great Again”, focusing on his domestic scene, and not getting involved in unnecessary war around the globe, hence his wish to end the Ukraine War, the war on Gaza and achieve a new nuclear deal with Iran; these are objectives, especially they last two, are not at all in line with the Netanyahu who is attacking Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and occasionally Yemen.

Thus the last deal between Trump and the Houthis, regardless of whether it would stick in the end, is surely likely to be a “splitting headache” for Netanyahu, from a man who was once seen as great friend to Israel.

But the Israeli Prime Minister must not forget that Trump is no pushover, he is a broker who likes to do things his own way.

This analysis is written by Dr Marwan Asmar, chief editor of the crossfirearabia.com website. 

CrossFireArabia

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Related Posts

‘Insulting Phone Call’, Beirut, Iran and Changing Dynamics

By Abdul Bari Atwan

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demonstrated his ability to effectively redraw the maps and borders of the Middle East when he backed down from striking Beirut’s southern suburb to completely destroying it. He succumbed to the threats and pressure from US President Donald Trump. In this respect here, Iran can be considered to have become a regional superpower not only in the Middle East, the West and Central Asia, but globally.

Trump, who previously threatened to wipe Iran off the map and unleash hell upon it, destroying all its energy and electricity infrastructure, scurried like a frightened rabbit to the phone to call Netanyahu in a “call of insults,” ordering him to immediately halt all plans to bomb Beirut’s southern suburb and withdraw his troops and warplanes en route to the area, just hours before the bombings and destructions where to begin.

***

In a Washington Post interview, Trump completely changed his threatening tone and began pleading for peace with Iran, after extending the unilateral ceasefire by 60 days. More importantly, he expressed his desire for a summit with Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei as soon as an agreement is reached, and confirmed that Mojtaba, whom he had previously claimed was no longer alive, is now involved in the decision-making process regarding war and peace in the current conflict.

The new and effective ‘password’ in the Middle East, reflecting Iran’s “power shift,” is embodied in its thunderous response to the Israeli threat to destroy the southern suburb of Beirut, western Bekaa Valley, and Nabatieh. Iran launched hundreds of missiles and drones to strike deep into occupied Israel, sending a clear message: “Greater Tel Aviv in exchange for the southern suburb.”

The Iranian leadership, backed by a solid popular base, a highly advanced missile and drone industry, a naval fleet, and over 460 kilograms of uranium enriched above 60%—enriched to produce 10 nuclear bombs in a few days—says what it means and acts accordingly. It will not tolerate injustice and is prepared for all eventualities.

There is ample evidence to support this assertion, as demonstrated early Wednesday morning when Iranian missiles and drones struck US military bases in Kuwait and Bahrain in retaliation for attacks on an Iranian oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz and a communications tower on Qeshm Island, both launched from these bases.

The American-Israeli alliance has, since the October War of 1973, grown accustomed to a deeply ingrained official Arab subservience, a failure to respond to any Israeli aggression, and a refusal to reject any American dictates. Most Arab leaders turn the other cheek to Israeli and American slaps, becoming indifferent to the situation. But now, someone has emerged to uproot this system of surrender and usher in a new, truly Islamic era—an era of resistance, where the response is not merely in kind, but in a stronger and more significant way.

Mohsen Rezaei, advisor to Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, summarized this new military, political, and moral upheaval in a statement saying, “America and its president, Trump, should expect a barrage of missiles (hypersonic and cluster warheads) and drones should they renew their aggression against Iran.”

Netanyahu, who craved the limelight and the humiliation of Arabs, and who rubbed his hands with glee at the long line of Arab leaders queuing before his office seeking normalization and the signing of the Abraham Accords, has fallen silent and disappeared from the public eye. He no longer dares to threaten to destroy Iran alone, without America’s participation in the aggression.

The dictates Trump issued just days ago, the shifting balance of power on the ground, and Iran’s threat of retaliation for any aggression against Lebanon have evaporated. The American president, as a New York Times editorial acknowledged, has failed miserably in all his wars since arriving at the White House a year and a half ago—in Iran, Ukraine, and the Gaza Strip—and has not achieved his objectives and has become a laughingstock.

As for the Gulf states – those that normalized relations and/or those that were eager to join the “Abraham Accords” to avoid angering Trump and rejecting his demands – they reached a firm conviction that America is incapable of protecting itself, its bases, and its ships.

The most prominent evidence of this is the destruction of American military bases in their countries, including the US Navy base in Bahrain, and the closure of these bases and Saudi airspace to planes and drones, whilst preventing them from launching attacks on Iran from their territory. They saved the Hajj season, just as they saved themselves and their people from the consequences of the mirage of American power.

***

In conclusion, we sympathize with our Kuwaiti brothers who were injured as a result of an Iranian missile attack on the passenger terminal at Kuwait Airport, whether by mistake or deliberately. However, the blame lies entirely with those who allowed America to use Kuwaiti territory as a launching pad for aggression against Islamic Iran. America possesses three aircraft carriers and more than 300 warships in the Arabian Sea, so why didn’t it use them in this aggression? And why does it insist on using its bases in the Gulf states, thereby endangering millions of their citizens?

Abdul Bari Atwan is the Chief Editor of the Arabic Al Rai Al Youm and his piece has appeared in the English crossfirearabia.com English website. 

Continue reading
Hormuz: Mines, Strategy or Business?

By Ismail Al Sharif

The US thought that assassinating senior Iranian leaders would bring down the regime, but this did not happen.

Iran’s inability to match American military and technological superiority led it to adopt a number of strategies, most notably what is known in the military literature as the Mosaic Defense Doctrine. This doctrine is based on dismantling its military central command into small, independent units, each operating autonomously and making its own decisions without consulting the higher command.

From Day 1 of the war, Iran adopted this approach. However, the lack of coordination and the disintegration of the military hierarchy led to chaos and confusion which affected the management of its operations. The situation became contradictory; the politicians were declaring one thing and military commanders acting in a completely different manner and direction.

This was reflected on the ground through extremely dangerous behavior. Military units, using small boats, indiscriminately laid naval mines to deter enemy ships. However, the lack of coordination here backfired resulting in the Iranian navy officers losing their ability to pinpoint the coordinates of the mines they planted in the Hormuz Strait with no accurate maps or reliable records. Some of these mines may have been completely displaced by the currents of the sea. This was further complicated by the fact that these mines were not primitive but far from it; they were sophisticated and able to detect sound and pressure, and thus able to track the passage of large ships and submarines, and detonate automatically upon approach.

However, mine removal is not easy task, as history shows. Even today, news reports continue to surface of mines in various parts of the Kingdom, half a century after the last war. Indeed, mines from World War II are still being discovered on land and at sea.

Even with Britain’s pledge to remove mines after the war, and despite possessing the latest specialized technologies in this field, the task remains arduous, protracted, and uncertain. The specter of a sudden explosion looms, reminding us that the danger of mines is not easily eliminated.

But the decisive factor in weakening navigation in the Hormuz Strait is not primarily military, but rather material. Commercial ships are massive investments, with some vessels valued at around $150 million and their cargoes potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Therefore, a single mine explosion can cause catastrophic losses to both the ship and its cargo. Consequently, no ship sails without insurance; ports, banks, and shipping companies refuse to deal with uninsured vessels, and without insurance, global shipping grinds to a halt.

Herein lies the real surprise: the fate of the Strait is no longer dependent on Iran’s pronouncements regarding its opening or closure, but has effectively fallen into the hands of insurance companies. With the escalating risks, insurance costs have skyrocketed; “war risk” premiums have jumped from approximately 0.25% of the ship’s value to nearly 1% or more, exceeding a massive $1 million per voyage. And it doesnt stop there; seven major insurance companies announced their complete withdrawal, issuing notices of coverage cancellation just within just 72 hours.

And here comes the decisive turning point: Once the insurance coverage is lost, maritime traffic ground to a halt. During this 39-war, ships have effectively ceased sailing with the number of vessels transiting the Strait plummeting by more than 80%. Around 150 oil tankers remain anchored offshore, and major shipping companies suspended their operations, as if this vital artery of global trade had been frozen by a financial, rather than a military decision.

The US government attempted to provide alternative insurance coverage, but this effort failed and US President Trump’s pronouncements regarding mine removal were inconsistent with the reality.

The issue of reopening the Strait has once again become a prominent topic, but the deeper truth is that its fate is no longer determined by political statements or military actions, but rather by the decisions of insurance experts. Even if the war were to end immediately, ships would not resume sailing right away. Insurance companies need time to reassess the level of risk, and they base their decisions not on political logic, but on cold, hard numbers and rigorous data.

This article was originally published in Arabic in Addustour daily newspaper and republished in English in crossfirearabia.com.

Continue reading

You Missed

Open War: 1967 Naksa Remembered

Open War: 1967 Naksa Remembered

Israeli Soldiers: ‘…We Had to Kill Arabs’

Israeli Soldiers: ‘…We Had to Kill Arabs’

Stories From Hell: Food at Gun-point

Stories From Hell: Food at Gun-point

Aid Flotilla: Activists Subjected to Torture

Aid Flotilla: Activists Subjected to Torture

9 Killed, Dozens Injured in Israeli Strikes on Flats in Gaza

9 Killed, Dozens Injured in Israeli Strikes on Flats in Gaza

‘Insulting Phone Call’, Beirut, Iran and Changing Dynamics

‘Insulting Phone Call’, Beirut, Iran and Changing Dynamics