Last Thursday, Israel carried out a concentrated airstrike on Sana’a, killing the head of the Houthi government, Ahmed Ghaleb al-Rahwi, along with several of his ministers. Tel Aviv presented the strike as “decisive.” The Houthis, however, vowed revenge, describing it as a “treacherous” act and affirming their readiness for escalation. The gravity of the situation was reflected in Israel’s decision to relocate two key meetings—the government cabinet and the security cabinet (the mini-cabinet)—to an undisclosed location.
For years, Israel has relied on precision strikes as a tool to contain its adversaries—through targeted assassinations, calculated bombardments, and temporary disruption of infrastructure. The recent strike in Sana’a follows the same pattern: a “decapitation strategy” designed to eliminate leadership rather than engage in a drawn-out war of attrition.
But the question now is: Do such strikes truly neutralise the Houthi threat, or do they risk transforming the group into a stronger symbol than before?
Mixed Global Reactions
International media offered divergent assessments.
- The Financial Times argued that despite the deaths of high-profile officials, the strike was unlikely to seriously weaken the Houthis’ military capabilities. The victims were primarily administrative leaders, not central military figures, and therefore the group’s operational strength would likely remain intact.
- The Associated Press echoed this view, noting that the strike targeted senior government officials in a meeting but did not eliminate key military commanders or infrastructure.
- The Wall Street Journal highlighted Israel’s intelligence advantage in orchestrating the attack, but conceded that the blow was not militarily decisive since the casualties were not at the heart of the Houthi command.
Meanwhile, analytical groups such as the International Crisis Group emphasised that the Houthis have bolstered their arsenal with cluster munitions and ballistic missiles, enhancing their resilience against airstrikes. U.S. strikes of far greater scale in the past also failed to destroy the group’s core capabilities, as the Houthis continued to launch rockets and drones despite heavy losses.
Israeli coverage, on the other hand, portrayed the operation as a “severe blow” that relied on sophisticated deception tactics. Outlets like the Jerusalem Post reported that Israel’s security establishment is reinforcing air-defence systems in anticipation of retaliatory missile or drone attacks from Yemen.
From Yemen’s Civil War to Israel’s Battlefield
Two decades ago, few imagined that a small local faction in Saada province would become a player in Israel’s regional wars. The Houthis began as a Yemeni rebel movement but evolved as Iran entered the equation—first as a pressure card, then as a maritime disruptor threatening global trade routes, and finally as a direct military actor against Israel.
Today, Tel Aviv no longer views the Houthis as a local militia but as a long-range arm of the regional resistance. From their seat of power in Sana’a, the group can strike Eilat and Ashdod with drones and missiles, and threaten shipping lanes in the Red Sea. This transformation—from civil war militia to regional actor in the Arab-Israeli struggle—is what troubles Israel more than the drones themselves.
The Houthis’ Strategic Cards
If this trajectory continues, the Houthis may find themselves at a decisive turning point. Their leverage lies in three main cards:
- The Red Sea: Each attack on Israel-linked vessels raises the cost of global trade and secures the Houthis a place on the international agenda.
- Missile Capabilities: As they extend their range and accuracy, the Houthis could shift from being a nuisance to a strategic threat deep inside Israel.
- Symbolism: With Gaza hemmed in and Hezbollah bound by deterrence equations, the Houthis project themselves as the “last fortress” openly striking Israel.
This poses a dilemma for Tel Aviv: continue targeted assassinations at the risk of amplifying the Houthis’ symbolic power, or escalate into a broader military campaign in Yemen, with its heavy political and diplomatic costs.
Impact Across the Conflict Fronts
The latest strike in Sana’a carries strong symbolic weight. The killing of the Houthi prime minister and ministers is a public humiliation, but it is unlikely to weaken the group’s fighting spirit. If anything, it provides fuel for their internal propaganda.
Militarily, the Houthis’ infrastructure—ballistic missiles, drones, and intelligence systems—remains untouched, meaning their capacity to strike Israel persists, and may even intensify in retaliation. Politically, the group may exploit the incident to consolidate domestic legitimacy and frame itself as part of a wider “resistance axis” stretching from Gaza to Lebanon to Yemen.
In Israel, Netanyahu’s government touts the strike as proof of intelligence and operational superiority. Yet the pressure from the Israeli public remains immense, with demands for a swift end to simultaneous wars against Gaza, Hezbollah, and now the Houthis. Strategically, Israel will seek to narrow the fronts through selective strikes—but this risks opening Yemen as a larger battlefield and dragging Israel into a costly war of attrition on multiple fronts.
Possible Scenarios
Analysts suggest several pathways forward:
- Escalation: The Houthis respond with long-range missile barrages or a major naval strike in the Red Sea, prompting wider Israeli retaliation in Yemen.
- Containment: The strike remains symbolic, and the Houthis limit their response to avoid escalation—holding fire until the next round.
- Negotiation: Over the long term, if all parties are exhausted, the killing of Houthi leaders could become a pretext for regional or international mediation.
Netanyahu’s Internal Dilemma
Netanyahu faces a double bind. On one hand, he needed to strike Sana’a to counter Houthi threats on Israel’s southern ports and Red Sea trade routes, lest Israel be seen as weak. On the other, he knows expanding the war to Yemen could entangle Israel in a three-front attrition conflict—Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen—deepening domestic divisions.
The longer the war drags on, the more Israel’s economy weakens and public anger rises. Political infighting among Israel’s elites also grows, questioning whether constant escalation is worth the price. Thus, every show of force may backfire, cornering Netanyahu into greater strategic peril than the threats themselves.
The Fortress of Symbolism
Militarily, assassinating a political figure will not dismantle the Houthis’ war machine. After a decade of conflict, their structure is dispersed, adaptive, and resilient. The real effect is psychological. Israel’s strikes may wound, but they also provide the Houthis with martyrs—figures elevated as symbols of sacrifice and resistance. In this paradox, Israel’s attempts to weaken its enemy may actually reinforce the group’s symbolic stature.
Israel bets on “surgical strikes” to erode the Houthis, but this strategy risks backfiring, transforming the group into an enduring emblem of defiance. The Houthis may not be able to paralyse Israel militarily, but they hold something arguably more potent: the image of being the last fortress still openly confronting Israel, while other fronts are constrained by political calculations.
As the region teeters between limited war, full-scale escalation, and the lure of negotiations, one reality emerges: every drop of blood adds another layer to the Houthis’ symbolic capital. If the current trajectory holds, some observers warn that the coming year could well be remembered as the “Year of the Houthis”—the year they moved from Saada’s mountains to the stage of the Red Sea and Jerusalem.
