Washington is talking to the Houthis as fighting spreads across Yemen. The immediate goal appears to be protecting shipping. The deeper risk is that a narrow agreement could leave Yemen’s rival authorities more firmly entrenched, with no settlement for the country itself.
By the Editorial Team of TLF
The United States and Yemen’s Houthis have been talking. That much is no longer rumour. Vice President JD Vance acknowledged direct conversations, and Reuters reported that US officials met Houthi representatives at the American embassy in Muscat, with Oman helping to arrange the meeting. The State Department declined to confirm that particular encounter.
According to Reuters’ sources, the discussion focused on preserving the US–Houthi ceasefire and keeping shipping moving through the Red Sea. Those are urgent concerns. The Houthis have advanced along Yemen’s coast, fighting with Saudi-backed forces has intensified, and the Bab al-Mandab strait has become even more exposed to the war.
But a deal can succeed at sea while failing Yemen on land.
A Ceasefire With a Narrow Purpose
There is a precedent. In May 2025, Oman announced a ceasefire between Washington and the authorities in Sana’a. Its stated purpose was to stop the two sides targeting each other, including American vessels, and to protect commercial navigation. It did not settle who should govern Yemen.
The reported new contact follows the same logic: keep the United States out of another fight and secure a vital waterway. Reuters’ sources said Houthi representatives assured the Americans they intended to honour the earlier ceasefire and would not attack US vessels. One source said Saudi ships were excluded from a wider assurance about commercial shipping. Those accounts describe what sources say was conveyed in the meeting; they are not the text of a new agreement.
The Risk Lies in What Is Left Unsettled
Talks with an armed authority do not amount to recognising it as a state. There is no credible evidence that Washington is negotiating formal recognition of Yemen’s partition. Yet recognition is not the only way a division can deepen.
If the United States obtains guarantees for shipping while Yemen’s wider war continues, the Houthis could gain time to strengthen their hold over territory and institutions. Other Yemeni authorities would remain in place elsewhere, each increasingly accustomed to governing its own part of a fractured country. An arrangement intended to contain one international threat could, over time, make a national political settlement more difficult. That is a risk arising from the talks, not a confirmed American objective.
It would also be misleading to imagine a clean line between a Houthi north and an independent south. The latest Houthi advance has changed control along the Red Sea coast. Meanwhile, factions opposing the Houthis differ sharply over Yemen’s future; some southern groups seek independence, while others do not share that goal. A lasting peace would have to address those competing claims as well as the Houthi–government conflict.
This is the severe danger behind the Muscat channel: Yemen could remain one country in diplomatic statements while becoming harder to reunite in practice. Protecting ships may prevent a wider crisis. It cannot, by itself, decide who governs the coast, how Yemenis share power, or whether the people displaced by renewed fighting can return home. Those questions will still be waiting after any maritime deal.
Map: Generated with AI
Comments
Post a Comment