So much is being written now on Trump’s blow to world stock markets (via tariffs), but there is yet another specter haunting Washington, the Middle East, and the world at large. The recent wave of U.S. airstrikes on Yemen, ordered by President Donald Trump, mark in fact a perilous escalation in an already volatile Middle East.

Ostensibly aimed at curbing the Iran-backed Houthi rebels’ attacks on Red Sea shipping, these bombings are driven, once again, by Washington’s unwavering allegiance to Israel (they are also a nod to the defense industry—more on that later). Far from securing peace or protecting global trade, this military overreach risks dragging the United States into a catastrophic war with Iran, a conflict that would serve no American interest but would delight the war hawks in both Tel Aviv and Washington—plus the American defense sector.

Interestingly, Trump’s campaign rhetoric of avoiding Middle East quagmires has nearly evaporated, replaced as it has been by a hawkish push that betrays his promises of restraint. The Yemen airstrikes, among the largest in years, reveal an administration eager for military action. For one thing, leaked Signal messages have exposed Vice President JD Vance and senior officials celebrating the strikes with chilling enthusiasm—Vance offered “a prayer for victory” as bombs fell, while others cheered with emojis of fists, flags, and fire, reveling in Houthi deaths. This gloating, paired with Trump’s threats against Iran, shows a reckless pivot toward confrontation, far from the disengagement he once championed.

None of that is necessarily effective, from an American perspective. John Mearsheimer (American political scientist, and University of Chicago professor) has stated, in a talk with journalist Glenn Greenwald, that

“Trump can bomb them [Houthis] from now until kingdom come, and the end result is going to be the same: the Houthis are going to remain standing.”

This isn’t really about shipping lanes, anyway—as Vance famously says in one of the leaked messages (addressing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, who argued for the strikes):

“3 percent of US trade runs through the Suez. 40 percent of European trade does. (…) if you think we should do it, let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.”.

It’s about Israel, mostly. The Houthis did pause their maritime attacks during Gaza’s tenuous ceasefire, resuming only when Israel choked off aid to the enclave. Rather than pressuring Israel to lift its blockade—a move that could de-escalate tensions—Washington opts for bombs, aligning itself with Tel Aviv’s efforts to set the Middle East ablaze.

President Trump’s threats to hold Iran “fully accountable” for Houthi actions, coupled with his administration’s targeting of senior Houthi figures, signal a broader aim: to provoke Tehran into a response that justifies further U.S.-Israeli military action. This brinkmanship echoes the playbook of past neoconservative and Democrat disasters, from Iraq to Libya, where short-term “wins” birthed long-term chaos.

The human cost of this belligerence is enormous. The strikes have deepened Yemen’s humanitarian crisis, already dire after years of war, with UNICEF verifying “at least two boys, aged six and eight, were killed in strikes in northern Sa’ada.” Tribal communities have borne the brunt, with Houthi-run media claiming a residential strike in Kahza, Ibb Governorate, killed 15, mostly women and children from local tribes. Aid worker Siddiq Khan told The Guardian,

“The recent bombings were adding pressure on to an aid sector that was already collapsing,” as ports and roads—vital lifelines—lie in ruins.

Iran, for its part, has rejected Trump’s nuclear deal overtures, seeing them as coercion masked as diplomacy. The bombings in Yemen, paired with Israel’s own strikes on Houthi targets, only deepen Tehran’s resolve. A cornered Iran, facing a U.S.-Israeli axis eager to flex muscle, could retaliate—directly or through proxies—pushing the region past the tipping point. The fallout would then destabilize global energy markets, disrupt trade, and entangle the U.S. in another endless war, all while Israel has its strategic foes battered by American firepower.

On the other hand, a conflict with Iran or any such expanded Middle East confrontation would likely be a boon for the U.S. defense sector—and I’ve written before on how a President who already has too many enemies could be pressured to “appease” such sector amid his war against part of the deep state.

Historical precedent supports this—during the Iraq War, for instance, Lockheed Martin’s stock rose 150% from 2003 to 2007, and Northrop Grumman’s climbed 120%. Currently, with Trump’s Yemen strikes, defense giants like Raytheon (maker of Tomahawk missiles) and General Dynamics (supplying warships) are positioned to profit. The Pentagon’s 2025 budget, projected at $850 billion, could swell further with a new war, especially if Iran’s nuclear program or Houthi attacks justify sustained operations. Different analysts, journalists and critics have often commented that “arms companies thrive on conflict,” pointing to consistent revenue needs and stock price stability as motivators.

The defense sector’s influence on Trump could thus be quite significant. The industry (considering aerospace and defense) employs over 2 million Americans and wields a lobbying budget topping $100 million annually. In 2024 alone, Lockheed Martin and Boeing donated heavily to Republican campaigns, aligning with Trump’s orbit. Key administration figures like Pete Hegseth have been pushing a hard line on Yemen, as mentioned.

The domestic economic upside of defense spending might sway Trump. A war with Iran—escalating from Houthi strikes—could indeed juice GDP by 0.5-1%, as military Keynesianism kicks in, as economists like Paul Krugman have noticed during past conflicts.

Trump’s base however includes isolationists wary of “forever wars,” and his campaign promised to avoid Middle East quagmires. Moreover, a full-scale Iran conflict risks oil price spikes thereby hammering consumers and undoing any tariff-driven gains. The sector might pressure Trump, anyway, whispering about jobs and stocks, however the American leader’s somewhat unpredictable streak and focus on domestic wins could make him balk at a broader war.

Still, incremental Houthi strikes? Now, that’s an easier sell—low political cost, high defense profit. The industry’s fingerprints are already on this escalation; they’d happily nudge Trump further. The problem is that those could be dangerous steps towards further escalation with unpredictable results—and we have seen enough of those since 2022 at least.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Uriel Araujo, PhD, is an anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-0-9

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

Price: $9.40

Click here to order.

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.

Source link