Review of the events of the New Year's week in the Red Sea
The New Year did not become a reason for a pause in the aggravation of the situation around commercial shipping in the Red Sea. Recent incidents include an attack by the Houthis with anti-ship missiles on a Maersk corporation container ship (shot down by the US Navy), and an attack on the same ship by a UAV (there was damage). Next, American helicopters spent several hours hunting small Houthi boats at sea (the sinking of three units was announced).
On the first day of the new year, the Iranian destroyer Alborz with cruise missiles on board entered the Red Sea. The destroyer, although built in 1972, has undergone a very deep modernization and takes an active part in international military exercises.
Some Iranian and Middle Eastern resources carried information that there were initially two Iranian ships, but they were previously located to the south, did not “see” their place and did not directly enter the Red Sea.
Now at least one ship has appeared “officially” and will most likely be patrolling near Hodeidah, the main port of North Yemen. Since both the Houthis and the US Navy, together with the British, are likely to exchange blows, and food security in northern Yemen directly depends on the work of Hodeidah. Hodeidah is also the main port for aid supplies from Iran itself.
It is very interesting that in the confusion of these events, there was another attempt using a UAV to attack a merchant ship from Saudi Arabia (the United States officially stated that the drone allegedly flew from Iran).
What else can be noted over the past week is the multiple increase in activity in this direction from the UK. London is already directly threatening to strike the Houthis and, unlike other participants in the American “maritime coalition,” it is operating in the Red Sea together with the United States.
Everything seems to be going according to the scenario for further escalation, right up to the point of no return, but let’s try to look at this history a little wider. Even the methods of generating and managing this kind of chaos are interesting here; another thing is that there were many cases when at different stages this very controllability was lost.
Before the New Year, former British Prime Minister A. Blair made visits to Palestine and the Arabian states. He is a well-known personality in the region; the war in Iraq was launched, among other things, under his leadership. He subsequently made something like apologetic statements, but one must understand that before these statements there were long investigations by a special parliamentary commission with conclusions that the initial data were erroneous.
And so “Tony the Bomber” went on tour, where he tried to convince Arabian leaders to help accept or sponsor the movement of refugees from the Gaza Strip. The leadership of the Palestinian Authority has already stated that with this London decided to push through the solution to the Palestinian issue in the spirit of the so-called. "Balfour Declaration".
Actually, the declaration itself, essentially a letter, from Lord A. Balfour contained the official position of the kingdom’s Foreign Ministry regarding the need to create a Jewish state (“national home”) in Palestine.
There was no more specificity in the letter, the historical context of the Declaration (1917) was more than complicated, but the fact remains that in the Arab world this letter is perceived as an act of the darkest meanness on the part of London and a violation of a number of obligations.
Comparing the ideas with which A. Blair came to the Middle East with this letter from A. Balfour, local politicians and commentators emphasize that the ideas of resettling refugees from the Gaza Strip are absolutely unacceptable.
But this is precisely the idea that B. Netanyahu is directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly pushing, and this can be understood - this is one of the last scenarios in which he could declare “victory.” Otherwise, he and his cabinet will face proceedings on a scale unseen in fifty years.
A. Blair participated, with varying degrees of effectiveness, in a variety of negotiating formats in the region, and served as a moderator and consultant. In 2017, The Daily Telegraph revealed that he and his office had repeatedly received multimillion-dollar fees from Arabian monarchies, particularly the UAE (without publicizing these transactions).
This is generally a common thing when British and American military consultants receive some kind of bonuses there. But in this case, it is clear that the nominee is not just a heavyweight in politics, but a person who has relatively complimentary, close and high connections. Why is that? The United States itself cannot discuss such ideas - its relations with the UAE and Saudi Arabia were in a frozen state even before October 7.
The United States is already directly telling B. Netanyahu about the need to end the active phase of hostilities; The Economist generally cited information that Washington was pressing for deadlines by the end of the year. In response, B. Netanyahu stated on December 30 that the operation would drag on for several more months.
Washington cannot officially insist on the completion of the operation, much less “ban” something. But problems in the Red Sea create a chain of strong economic pressure on Tel Aviv.
On the one hand, the United States is trying to push through negotiations in the region on terms that are generally beneficial to B. Netanyahu. These negotiations are being conducted not only with the Arabians, but also with Egypt, Jordan, another thing is that this is still more of an allied demonstration.
On the other hand, the degree of tension in trade communications is increasing, and economic pressure is also growing, which is much more reliable than politicians’ speeches in the press. By the way, both the Egyptian budget and Jordanian trade fall under economic pressure.
If at the same time it is possible to put a stone in the Iranian boot, as in the story with the UAV, allegedly “flying from Iran,” then Washington will not fail to take advantage of the opportunity and add a handful of chaos to the region.
But in general, it can now be seen that the combination of restricting shipping and protecting shipping is no longer playing out as a macroeconomic scenario, but as a foreign policy one with the final addressee in Tel Aviv. And this is evident, because within two months the oil market reacts to this with a relatively mild rise in price, but for trading in goods this is quite unpleasant, as well as for large investment funds.
For Washington, there are other possible tactical benefits from the escalation in the Red Sea - they may try to play on issues of military assistance to both Israel and Ukraine. In a certain scenario, one can even attribute the minimization of military assistance to Kyiv to the operation related to Yemen.
Such a play on many multidirectional interests at once in order to create pressure from various “objective factors” on a specific node is a fairly well-tested method for the United States. The problem with this method is that we have already repeatedly observed situations where the threads of a plan are simply lost after several iterations, and the plan breaks up into several independent combinations.
The United States made miscalculations of this kind in a more monolithic and controlled domestic political situation and with much greater foreign policy influence in the region. And here, of course, the United States should several times weigh the option of a possible, if not blockade, then monitoring of supplies to Hodeidah, since they and the British naval air defense will be repeatedly tested for strength.
Here, not only will the United States have to play on the brink of a foul, but also take into account the specifics of its closest partner - London, which always plays together, but always with its own interest and with private independent combinations. Many times this is simply done at the expense of the “big elephant”, that is, the United States itself. Well, the United States will have to constantly take into account the threat of shelling of its military bases in Syria, Iraq, and even directly in the Persian Gulf, but the British are spared from these circumstances.
Information