The War Exposes the Limits of Their Vision
If the Houthi escalation is an extension of the US-Iran war, can Washington's responsibility be reduced to a decision on military intervention? And who bears the consequences of a war whose threats extend beyond Saudi Arabia to international interests?

By Abdullah Al-Omairah

An opinion article published in the British newspaper The Guardian on Monday, October 19, 2026, by Mohamad Bazzi, a Lebanese-American journalist and academic, professor of journalism at New York University and a specialist in Middle Eastern affairs, raises important questions about the nature of alliances and security responsibilities in the region.

The article, titled “Saudi Arabia is learning the hard way: they can't count on Trump for protection,” examined the limits of US security guarantees to the Kingdom, linking political and personal relationships and Saudi investments in the United States to expectations of American military support in confronting the Houthis.

Bazzi acknowledges that the American war against Iran reignited the Saudi-Houthi confrontation and that the Houthis are allies of Tehran. However, he concludes from President Donald Trump's refusal to expand US military intervention that Saudi Arabia cannot rely on him for its protection.

This is where the issue that deserves discussion begins: Is refusing to carry out a specific military operation sufficient grounds for judging a strategic alliance? And can the American decision be assessed without considering responsibility for the expansion of the war and the interconnected nature of its fronts?

The issue is not about asking Washington to fight a war on Saudi Arabia's behalf, but about understanding the nature of the conflict, the limits of allies' commitments, and responsibility for threats that extend beyond the region.

Where Does Responsibility Lie?

Bazzi begins with political and military facts that deserve discussion, but he gives personal relationships and economic investments considerable weight in explaining the limits of the American military response.

This is a legitimate analytical perspective, but it does not, on its own, provide a sufficient explanation for decisions shaped by overlapping military, political, and economic considerations.

The Saudi-American relationship did not begin with Trump, nor is it based on the personal relationship between the leaders of the two countries. It is a partnership built over decades, encompassing military, security, and economic cooperation, with intersecting strategic interests extending beyond successive American administrations.

The strength of defense alliances cannot be measured by one party's response to every military request, just as refusing to participate in a specific operation cannot be considered a complete abandonment of security commitments.

However, this does not exempt Washington from questions about its responsibilities toward regional threats connected to a confrontation it is itself waging against Iran.

Here lies the paradox.

If the American-Iranian war contributed to reigniting the Yemeni front, as the author acknowledges, then discussing its consequences should not be limited to Washington's willingness to defend Saudi Arabia. It must also include Iran's responsibility for expanding the conflict through its armed allies.

Thus, scrutiny of the targeted party's ability to respond takes precedence, while scrutiny of the source of the threat and its responsibility for expanding the war recedes.

The Houthis: Military Ties to Iran

The Houthis are not merely a Yemeni group engaged in an internal struggle for power, but an armed militia that carries out terrorist attacks and is linked to the Iranian military system through armaments, training, intelligence support, and operational assistance.

International reports and intelligence information have revealed the role of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in developing missile and drone capabilities and providing technical and operational support, as well as the presence of military advisers linked to Tehran.

This connection makes Houthi operations part of a system of regional threats extending beyond Yemen's borders.

When missiles and drones are used to target Saudi Arabia, or maritime passages become arenas of threat, the consequences are not confined to the Yemeni conflict.

Concerns widen further with what investigations and security measures in European countries, including Germany and Britain, have uncovered regarding activities and threats attributed to Iran, including the planning of terrorist operations.

Thus, the threat linked to Iran is no longer merely a regional matter, but a security issue whose consequences extend to Europe and international interests.

Acknowledging the Houthis' connection to Iran, as Bazzi does, is an important step in understanding the conflict. But more importantly, this acknowledgment must be reflected in the analysis of responsibilities rather than remaining merely background context.

Yemen: A Test of the Broader Confrontation

The significance of military operations in Yemen is not limited to confronting the Houthis; it also extends to testing capabilities and operational methods that may have applications in the broader confrontation with Iran.

Dealing with missiles and drones, identifying their launch sites, and disrupting command and supply systems provides valuable battlefield experience in confronting weapons and technologies, some of which are linked to the Iranian military system.

From this perspective, what is happening in Yemen can be viewed as a test of some of the challenges that military operations against Iran may encounter, despite differences in the scale of capabilities, geography, and the nature of targets.

What happens in Yemen therefore has consequences beyond the Yemeni front, as its results and lessons may contribute to developing assessments of the broader confrontation with Tehran.

This interconnection does not mean that military operations in Yemen are identical to war with Iran, but it confirms that completely separating the two fronts does not help in understanding their strategic dimensions.

Two Straits, One Global Interest

The war reveals the importance of the strategic connection between the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab Al-Mandab Strait.

Any disruption in Hormuz affects energy supplies, while any threat to Bab Al-Mandab has repercussions for trade between Asia and Europe and for shipping through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal.

These consequences do not stop at the borders of Saudi Arabia or Yemen. They extend to oil prices, shipping and insurance costs, supply chains, and energy-importing economies.

One of the paradoxes is that freedom of navigation becomes an international priority when the economic cost of threatening it rises, while confronting the sources of those threats is sometimes viewed as the responsibility of the geographically closest country alone.

If the interests are shared, responsibility for protecting them cannot be entirely local.

Here, the discussion moves beyond Bazzi's question about Trump's willingness to protect Saudi Arabia to a broader question about the distribution of responsibilities in confronting threats that affect the global economy and international security.

Alliances Are Not Blank Checks

The United States has the right to determine its military choices according to its interests and assessments, just as Saudi Arabia has the right to make its defense decisions in a manner that safeguards its security and sovereignty.

Riyadh and Washington may differ over the timing of military operations and the extent of direct involvement, without this necessarily indicating a fracture in their partnership.

But differences in priorities do not eliminate shared interests, nor do they exempt either party from discussing its responsibility for the regional consequences of its decisions.

The Saudi-American partnership is not based on one party's dependence on the other, nor on the assumption that the Kingdom is incapable of defending itself. Rather, it rests on an intersection of broad strategic and security interests.

An alliance does not imply an unlimited commitment to fight every war, just as the rejection of a single military operation does not necessarily mean the collapse of all defense commitments.

Here lies the difference between viewing an alliance through the lens of an immediate decision and viewing it through the lens of accumulated interests, institutions, and commitments.

Nor can the Yemeni conflict be resolved through military operations alone. Yemen's stability requires supporting state institutions, restoring their ability to administer the country's territory, and creating the security and political conditions that prevent the conflict from recurring.

Iran: The Outcome of 47 Years

Over 47 years, Iran has sought to expand its influence until it extended to four Arab capitals, exploiting sectarian slogans and ideological mobilization to reshape the consciousness of some societies and replace facts with superstition, making it easier to subjugate them and use them as instruments serving its expansionist project.

But developments in the region reveal the limits of this project. Arab transformations are underway that seek to restore national decision-making and strengthen Arab identity, while Houthi operations in Yemen have exposed the scale of the threat posed by military networks linked to Iran, not only to regional security but also to navigation, trade, and international stability.

What is required of the Western press is not to adopt the Saudi position or disregard its right to criticize alliances and policies, but to offer an analysis that gives the parties to the conflict and their responsibilities the weight that the facts warrant.

Criticism that focuses on the limits of American protection without giving comparable attention to the source of the threat and responsibility for expanding the war remains a partial interpretation of a conflict whose dimensions extend beyond relations between Riyadh and Washington.

Mohamad Bazzi's article raises a question that deserves an answer, but it does not necessarily provide the only answer.

Saudi Arabia is defending its sovereignty and national security while also contributing to the protection of regional stability on which global trade and energy flows depend.

Therefore, the question should not only be: Can the Saudis rely on Trump to protect them?

But also: What responsibility do the parties that contributed to expanding the war bear, and who bears the consequences of threats that have come to affect international interests?

A war whose consequences extend beyond Yemen's borders cannot be understood as though it were a separate Yemeni confrontation, nor can it be reduced to a test of Saudi-American relations.

And one question remains: Has some of the Western media recognized that the global balance of power has changed, and that the Middle East is no longer a land to be discovered by Vasco da Gama and Columbus, nor a region to be viewed through the outdated mentality of guardianship, but a power that makes its own decisions and asserts its presence in international affairs?