From the Battlefield Crisis to Bab al-Mandab: Yemen’s Military Shift and the Prospects for Reshaping Regional Balances
The Yemeni arena is witnessing a highly dangerous military and security transformation, as the Houthis advance along the western coast and take control of sites and areas of strategic importance. Discussion of the city of Mokha, expansion toward Bab al-Mandab, and access to the archipelago, Mayyun Island, and adjacent coastal areas means that current developments go beyond a change in internal lines of control inside Yemen. They are pushing the conflict from the level of an internal war to the level of competition over maritime corridors and regional and international interests.
These accelerating developments reveal a structural crisis within the anti-Houthi forces, with implications that go beyond a passing battlefield loss. The Houthis have achieved a rapid shift in the operational center of gravity and secured their most important geographic and strategic gain in years. At the same time, the pace of developments indicates that government forces have lost the operational initiative, moving the crisis from its internal battlefield scope to the calculations surrounding Bab al-Mandab and maritime routes.
The gravity of what has happened lies as much in the speed of the retreat by government forces and anti-Houthi actors as in the Houthis’ ability to advance. This raises a central question: how did the Houthis advance so quickly? And why were government forces and their supporting units unable to withstand or contain the attack? The answer points to a deeper reality: what is unfolding on the ground reflects a breakdown in the system of command and control, and in political and military cohesion, more than it reflects a tactical retreat by separate military units.
If this trajectory continues, Yemen may become a center for redrawing regional balances, particularly amid the overlap between the Yemeni war, Iranian-American escalation, and the struggle over the Strait of Hormuz, Bab al-Mandab, and the Red Sea. At the same time, it remains premature to speak of a complete and final collapse of government forces. There are still formations, forces, and areas capable of fighting and maneuvering, and the Yemeni government has announced its intention to launch counterattacks.
The explanation for the retreat of government forces begins with several key levels, foremost among them the collapse of command and control. The operational effectiveness of any army or military force is not measured only by the number of its personnel or the size of its arsenal, but by its ability to make decisions, transmit orders, and coordinate units. One of the main reasons for the rapid retreat appears to lie in the gap between political leadership, military command, local formations, tribal forces, and units deployed across different fronts.
The second level relates to the absence of a unified army. For years, the Yemeni dilemma has gone beyond the ability to confront the Houthis; it has centered on the absence of a unified national military institution operating under a shared combat doctrine and a single command. Anti-Houthi forces include formations with multiple affiliations and backgrounds. They differ in their regional relationships, areas of deployment, political priorities, funding sources, leaderships, and visions for the future of the Yemeni state. This problem may have been containable during a phase of static defense or relative calm, but it becomes a dangerous point of weakness when facing a rapid attack by a determined adversary, because such a moment requires centralized decision-making and a unified response.
The Houthis benefited from this reality. The group operates under a relatively more centralized leadership and possesses a greater ability to unify military, political, and media decision-making. It also benefited from the collapse of confidence before the collapse of positions. Military collapse sometimes begins when fighters feel that reinforcements will not arrive, that air support is uncertain, that the neighboring front may collapse, and that logistical supply lines are insecure. At that point, military positions become fragile, and psychological warfare, speed of movement, and the erosion of confidence within the opposing side become decisive factors in explaining the rapid retreat.
The collapse and retreat of government defensive lines can be summarized by the absence of a unified strategy among government forces, the element of surprise, and the loss of initiative. Government forces were in a defensive posture, while the Houthis imposed the timing and location of the engagement. They managed to penetrate the first defensive line, producing a domino effect, as the Houthis exploited the collapse of defensive sectors to create a cascading collapse in adjacent sectors. Saudi air support, despite being present, was insufficient on the coast at the moment Houthi forces advanced, while government forces needed a higher level of support.
In addition, government forces suffered from a clear lack of sufficient defensive depth, while the Houthis concentrated their strength at decisive points. The multiplicity of components within government forces and the absence of full operational cohesion also weakened their ability to hold ground. This problem is intensified by the heavy reliance of government forces on external support and weak coordination between political and military decision-making. This cannot be separated from the effect of Houthi ballistic missiles and drones, as well as the absence of reserves capable of rapid intervention among government forces and their supporting factions.
These developments reveal the limits of relying on external support. External support alone cannot build a cohesive national force. When an army depends on foreign airpower, foreign intelligence, foreign funding, and external political decisions, any shift in the position of an ally is immediately reflected on the battlefield.
The Houthis exploited an available operational opportunity and chose their timing at a moment of intense complexity, benefiting from a favorable strategic environment. They employed their combat capabilities with maximum operational effect against the weaknesses of government forces. In doing so, they moved from defense to initiative, marking a genuine qualitative shift. They are no longer simply waiting for attacks or managing a war of attrition inside their own areas. They have become capable of opening multiple fronts that drain the capacities of government forces and their supporting units across more than one axis of combat. They have also begun initiating attacks, carrying out simultaneous operations, using missiles and drones, and combining ground operations with regional pressure. In this way, they have moved from the model of a local force to that of a regional military actor.
These developments pose a direct challenge to Saudi national security. The threat is no longer limited to cross-border missiles, drones, or attacks on energy facilities; it now extends to the possibility of changing the military map along the Yemeni coast. This places Saudi Arabia before difficult choices: broader military intervention, rebuilding Yemeni forces, or searching for a new political settlement.
As the threat expands in Yemen and the Red Sea, the need to examine the relationship between Yemeni security and the Iranian-Western conflict increases. Iran had previously threatened the possibility of directing the Houthis to interfere with navigation in Bab al-Mandab and the Red Sea, and this is what has happened. From this perspective, Yemen may once again become an arena for regional bargaining among major powers, rather than merely a separate domestic file. Multiple actors are involved, from the United States and Iran to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Although Emirati military forces have withdrawn, Emirati influence over local forces remains present.
In this context, the question of Aden emerges as a strategic one. From a military perspective, Aden does not appear to be a direct operational target for the Houthis. Yet any Houthi advance toward the western coast and the southern governorates creates significant pressure on the city. The Houthi objective may not be the direct occupation of Aden, but such an advance could lead to the dispersion of its forces, the disruption of supply routes, the exhaustion of government forces, increased displacement toward the south, and a state of political panic in the region. In this sense, Aden can be a strategic target even if it is not a direct operational target.
These developments open the door to four possible scenarios. The first is a counteroffensive that halts the collapse, which would be the most positive scenario for the Yemeni government. This requires unified command, organized logistical reinforcements, effective and intensive air support capable of producing impact, and the ability to launch counterattacks that recover some of the areas taken by the Houthis. The success of this scenario requires a swift political and military decision.
The second scenario is the Houthis’ consolidation of their gains. This is a dangerous scenario in the medium term. If the Houthis manage to consolidate control over the coast, secure supply routes, prevent counterattacks, and deploy their coastal and missile defenses, the gains they have made over the past twenty-four hours could turn into a new strategic reality. This would enable the Houthis to influence the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab, while making the recovery of these areas more complex and costly.
The third scenario is an accelerated political and military collapse. This does not necessarily mean the fall of the Yemeni state, but it could open the door to divisions within the forces, mutual accusations, the collapse of some fronts, increased humanitarian suffering, wider displacement, and further Houthi expansion. This scenario would make the southern regions and Aden more fragile.
The fourth scenario is the greater internationalization of the conflict. If international navigation in Bab al-Mandab is exposed to a direct and sustained threat, the Yemeni crisis could become more internationalized, opening the way for international naval operations against missile-launch platforms, intelligence operations, and regional interventions. External intervention may weaken the Houthis, but at the same time it may give them an opportunity to present themselves as a force resisting international intervention.
The conclusion is that the real danger is not only related to the gains the Houthis have managed to seize, but to the possibility that the collapse of Yemeni forces could turn into a security and strategic vacuum exploited by the Houthis to alter the balance of power in Yemen. They could then use this shift to affect Saudi Arabia and its interests, as well as the Bab al-Mandab and Red Sea region. This requires incorporating Iranian influence into the reading of the scene and linking the Strait of Hormuz with Bab al-Mandab.
What will determine Yemen’s future is the ability of the relevant actors to restore the initiative, unify military decision-making, and prevent the current tactical collapse from turning into a comprehensive strategic collapse.
اختاري صورة مناسبة