Western leaders should threaten the Houthis with more vigorous and deadly retaliatory action should they continue their campaign against regional shipping. If the Houthis believe in “death to America,” the least we can do is return the sentiment.

Will half-measures work against the Houthis? Don’t bet on it.

Last week, U.S. and British forces conducted a series of airstrikes against more than sixty Houthi targets in Yemen. The attacks were in response to a series of provocative moves carried out by the Iranian-backed rebels in recent weeks, among them the targeting of international shipping in the Red Sea with drone attacks, the use of anti-ship missiles, and hijacking. The Coalition strikes—part of the multinational “Operation Prosperity Guardian”—were aimed at weapons control systems and intended to inhibit future Houthi attacks while minimizing casualties.

Britain’s defense secretary, Grant Shapps, has said that the goal of the attacks was not to “remove all of their facilities” but “to send a very clear message.” The Houthis sent a message of their own on Monday, launching a new round of anti-shipping attacks and damaging a U.S. merchant vessel.

Coalition members downplayed the implications of the strikes. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby explained that Coalition attacks were not meant to spark escalation, and in fact, the United States was “not interested in a conflict of any kind”—which is a strange thing to say after bombing another country. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak called the attacks “limited, not escalatory,” but this may telegraph weakness rather than warning. From the Houthi point of view, they were attacked, and they survived. The fact that they absorbed a Coalition strike and are still standing counts as a victory.

Coalition leaders may also have downplayed the nature of the attacks to stay within the parameters of a UN Security Council resolution passed last Wednesday, which condemned the Houthi attacks and noted the rights of member states to protect shipping. However, the resolution did not contain a blanket authorization for the use of force. Communist China, which abstained on the resolution, later stated that the Coalition attacks were not UN-sanctioned, and some ships transiting the Red Sea had declared themselves “all Chinese” to avoid being attacked. 

The confrontation with the Houthis is asymmetric in both capability and intent. Western powers are trying to manage the conflict and use the minimum force necessary to achieve limited military aims. The Houthis, by contrast, are determined to sink ships and will keep trying to do so any way they can, as often as possible. The Coalition is approaching this as a small-scale annoyance they can readily brush aside. The Houthis, as their official name suggests, are Ansar Allah, the supporters of God, whose slogans include “Death to America” and “Victory to Islam.” They are highly motivated and unlikely to be deterred by mere messages. In short, while the West pursues conflict management, the Houthis want victory.

This conflict is also part of Iranian efforts to disrupt the region during Israel’s war against Hamas. Tehran has long supplied the Houthis with weapons, a point underscored Tuesday when Navy SEALs seized “Iranian-made ballistic missile and cruise missiles components” from a Yemen-bound ship off the coast of Somalia. So long as this supply line remains intact, we can expect the attacks to continue.

And while the Coalition seeks to contain and conceptually detach the Houthi strikes from the other fronts in the wider regional conflict (which encompasses Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq), Iran can use its proxies as well as its own forces to strike at will in any of these conflict zones. For example, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps took credit for ballistic missile attacks Monday near the U.S. Consulate in Erbil, Iraq, which they called the “headquarters of spies and anti-Iranian terrorist gatherings in parts of the region.” The attacks were “in response to recent crimes committed by Iran’s enemies.” In other words, it is not just the Houthis who must be deterred.

The potential for escalation is great, whether Coalition leaders want it or not. Advances in technology are placing ships at greater risk. Weapons are smaller, more accurate, more mobile, easier to hide, and can be deployed without relying on complex infrastructure. This dynamic has been playing out in the war in Ukraine, where warships from the Russian Black Sea fleet have been damaged or sunk by remote strikes from the air or on water, forcing them to retreat from Sevastopol. The larger, less protected merchant vessels in the Red Sea would seem to be even more at risk, and it is only through Coalition interdiction efforts that more ships haven’t been severely damaged. 

Houthi leaders have said that they will end their campaign against Red Sea shipping when there is a ceasefire in Gaza, leading some to argue that the onus is on the United States to pressure Israel to suspend its fight against Hamas. But bowing to Houthi—and Iranian—pressure tactics would be a sign of weakness and reward the Houthis for high-seas terrorism. Clearly, however, a continuing campaign of pinprick attacks and defensive measures will not deter aggression or remove the threat. Rather than explaining away Coalition attacks as an exercise in messaging, Western leaders should threaten the Houthis with more vigorous and deadly retaliatory action should they continue their campaign against regional shipping. If the Houthis believe in “death to America,” the least we can do is return the sentiment.