Saudi Arabia Can't Stop the Houthis. Guess Who Wants In? /Patrick Henningsen

Summary

• Saudi Arabia and the Houthis: The discussion opens with reports of repeated Houthi attacks on Riyadh’s airport and President Trump saying the United States may join Saudi strikes, after previously declining requests for military help. Patrick Henningsen questions what U.S. involvement could achieve, arguing that Washington has few effective military options and that direct intervention could widen the conflict.

• Why the conflict escalated: Henningsen alleges that the United States encouraged Saudi Arabia to strike Sana’a airport, helping trigger the current cycle of retaliation. He argues that the escalation has weakened Riyadh and increased U.S. leverage over it. He points to possible U.S. offers—including an F-35 deal and nuclear cooperation—as part of a “carrot and stick” approach. He also argues that Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen has brought it little benefit and that its greatest vulnerability may be internal stability, not the Houthis alone. Any support from Pakistan or Turkey, he says, would be conditional.

• Possible U.S. options: Henningsen sees limited scope for sustained U.S. operations in Yemen or against Iran. He raises a potential U.S. presence in Oman as a hypothetical way to support operations near Yemen or the Strait of Hormuz, while acknowledging the risks. Daniel Davis responds that any concentrated U.S. force in the region would remain vulnerable to Iranian missiles and drones. Both express concern that renewed conflict with Iran could escalate, particularly if Israel initiates further attacks.

• Iraq and regional leverage: Henningsen says the withdrawal of most U.S. forces from Iraq could complicate future operations against Iran. He argues that Iraq’s inability to control its airspace and its dependence on oil revenues managed through U.S. financial channels leave it exposed. He also describes Iraqi politics as unpredictable and vulnerable to destabilization.

• Russia, Ukraine, and the diesel deal: The speakers discuss a limited U.S. sanctions exemption allowing Russian diesel sales. Henningsen characterizes it as a small, one-off opening rather than broad sanctions relief, and says Moscow may benefit by putting pressure on Ukraine and European governments. He also interprets U.S. control over which markets receive energy as a signal to China. The discussion notes that Russia rejected Volodymyr Zelensky’s proposed two-month ceasefire, while Henningsen portrays the public dispute between Trump and Zelensky as potentially reversible political maneuvering.

• U.S. strategy and wider risks: Henningsen argues that U.S. policy is focused on restricting China’s access to energy and strategic trade routes while trying to draw Russia away from China. He criticizes this approach as coercive and damaging to U.S. credibility, describing Washington’s use of sanctions, tariffs, and military pressure as a form of global extortion. He also doubts U.S. claims that it can manage simultaneous conflicts across Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and the Arctic.

• NATO and Article 5: The discussion challenges the idea that Article 5 automatically commits every NATO member to war. Henningsen says the treaty requires consultation and leaves decisions to individual states, and argues that the United States is unlikely to risk nuclear confrontation with Russia on Europe’s behalf. Davis questions whether political leaders would uphold their commitments in a crisis.

Presenters and Contributors

• Daniel Davis — Host
• Patrick Henningsen — Guest, 21st Century Wire and The Sunday Wire