• Arab states are ‘not as keen to get into a fight with the Houthis as perhaps the Western nations,’ says Joost Hiltermann, MENA program director at the International Crisis Group
• For Saudi Arabia and UAE, there is ‘large discontent with the US’ and a ‘crisis of confidence between strategic partners,’ says Ibrahim Jalal, non-resident scholar at Middle East Institute
• Risk of escalation a clear possibility at the moment, warn experts

ISTANBUL

After the US unveiled a 10-nation coalition to counter Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, analysts are pointing to the notable absence of Arab countries from the force, suggesting that there is a reluctance on their part to engage in a direct confrontation with the Yemeni rebels.

Led by the US, the multinational patrol force includes the UK, Canada, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Seychelles, along with Bahrain, the only Arab Gulf state.

It aims to deter the Houthis, who have been targeting shipping vessels by missiles and drones in the wake of Israel’s ongoing war in the Gaza Strip, which has forced major shipping lines to suspend movement or reroute oil and fuel shipments from what is one of the world’s busiest maritime passages.

“I don’t think the Arab states are as keen to get into a fight with the Houthis as perhaps the Western nations,” Joost Hiltermann, MENA program director at the International Crisis Group, told Anadolu.

Western states also would want to “establish deterrent power” rather than engage in direct conflict, he said.

Speaking about Saudi Arabia, he said the kingdom has “no interest” in the coalition as it would “want to get out of the war in Yemen, not to get further dragged into it.”

Saudi Arabia is “heavily involved in negotiations with the Houthis” so joining “such a coalition now would probably mean a breakdown in these talks,” he said.

In general, Arab states are “quite okay” with Western nations taking up this role “because they have a joint interest in the free movement of commercial traffic.”

Ibrahim Jalal, a non-resident scholar at the Middle East Institute, believes there are multiple reasons for Saudi Arabia and the UAE staying out of the joint force.

First, there is “large discontent with the US” and there is a “crisis of confidence between strategic partners,” he said.

The second is the Houthi threat of resuming cross-border attacks, so both Saudi Arabia and the UAE “have their national priorities that do not necessarily go hand in hand with the American posture,” according to Jalal.

A third factor is that neither country wants to be viewed as acting “in defense of Israel,” he said.

​​​​​​​“Finally, it’s one way in which these countries sort of try to reaffirm a degree of independence in their foreign and defense policymaking to communicate to the US, particularly, that they’re not interested in the reactions, but instead in a strategic, calculated engagement in the region against the backdrop of US entrenchment or aggression in the region,” Jalal said.

However, he added that it is worth noting that Saudi Arabia remains part of the Combined Maritime Forces, a 38-member multinational maritime partnership led by the US, which the UAE pulled out of earlier this May.

Jalal views the formation of the new force as “a recognition of the failure of the management of the conflict.”

To him, it seems like a “cosmetic” measure and “not a strategic fix.”

“I think we’ve had a massive failure in the security architecture in the region, and this is just a reflection of that failure, be it in the airspace or the maritime domain,” he said.

Jalal stressed the need for a collaborative approach that emerges from the region, instead of “just creating large international coalitions.”

“Then the security collaboration could be more strategic in terms of support, in terms of mobilization, in terms of coordinating in support of the freedom of navigation,” he said.

According to Hiltermann, the US and Western nations are “deeply concerned about the flow of oil and general shipping through the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb strait in particular,” referring to the narrow passage at its southern tip where the Houthis have attacked several ships bound for Israel.

“The motivation clearly was to contain the Houthis and to prevent them from firing at commercial shipping, given that the Red Sea is a vital waterway for the transport of oil but also generally goods,” he said.

“So, the question is really whether this can be effective, (but) that is impossible to say.”

However, he believes it is “certainly a deterrent because if the Houthis continue firing at commercial shipping, then firepower from these Western ships could make a difference.”

Economic impact

The Red Sea is connected to the Mediterranean by the Suez Canal, creating the shortest shipping route between Europe and Asia.

In recent days, major shipping lines have been abandoning the route, diverting to the much longer path around Africa.

Hiltermann said the situation is affecting global markets so all nations, not just the US, have an interest in resolving it, “which is what is motivating the assembly of a coalition to counter the Houthi attacks.”

Regarding the economic implications, he said insurers, in particular of commercial shipping, are raising their rates, which is pushing up costs.

“There will be delays, especially if ships are deciding that it’s not worth the risk and the cost for them, and they will avoid the Red Sea, which means they would have to go around the African continent, which is going to lead to delays in the delivery of goods,” he said.

“So, overall, that means that the costs are going to go up for the consumers, and we’re talking globally.”

Jalal pointed out that economic impacts are obvious in the global supply chain.

“First of all, it’s unprecedented to see a non-state actor pose significant threats to commercial vessels, including those not necessarily tied or destined for Israel,” he said.

“We have seen a Norwegian vessel with a cargo that was headed somewhere. So, that obviously highlights the level of insecurity and lack of safety for commercial traffic in the Red Sea, as well as the cargoes aboard.”

He said this has resulted in hikes and more premium insurance, pushing up shipping costs, while several companies are refraining from making insurance available given the heightened level of risk, leading to a reduction of operators.

“Just over the past five days, at least seven major shipping companies suspended their operations against the backdrop of these activities,” said Jalal.

Gaza war

About Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza, Hiltermann said the situation in the Red Sea is linked to the crisis.

“I think the war in Gaza will have an impact on the situation in the Red Sea because the Houthis have made clear that as soon as Israel halts its offensive in Gaza, then they will also stop firing at commercial shipping,” he said.

He said the chances of a regional spillover “have been evident since Oct. 7 and they still exist today … maybe getting more serious.”

The Houthi attacks on shipping in the Gulf is just one example of regional spillover, said the expert.

He warned that the risk of an escalation in the Red Sea is very much present.

“It could come to a shooting war between the assembled countries and their military forces on the one side and the Houthis on the other,” said Hiltermann.

Regarding the risk of escalation, Jalal said there are “different lenses” to the situation.

One is the situation in Gaza and the humanitarian atrocities, he said.

The second is that the Houthis have “sort of emerged as a maritime power despite their limited capacity and capabilities, in a way to strengthen their position ahead of a peace agreement,” he said.

“The third is, obviously, the attempt to speak to the sentiment in both the Arab and Islamic worlds, which has actually been echoed and received positively, regardless of whether they know who the insurgency or the rebel group is,” said Jalal.

“What we can expect is the continuation in talks, but unless demands are made or met, then we might see sort of a more concerted focus targeting vessels that sort of support the Israeli occupation regime in any way.”