Houthis and Iran: A War Time Alliance

American Enterprise Institute, 2022

Yemen’s Houthis are part of the Iranian-led informal alliance known as the Axis of Resistance and increasingly threaten regional security in the Middle East. US policy has framed the Houthis as an artifact of Yemen’s war—a local Yemeni movement with local aims or, alternatively, a Yemeni proxy under Iran’s full command. Instead, the Houthis have preserved their autonomy while integrating into Iran’s network of state and nonstate actors opposed to Western influence in the Middle East. Houthi ties with Iran and other Axis members have strengthened significantly during the past eight years of Yemen’s war, and Iranian-sourced capabilities transferred to the Houthis have expanded the conflict beyond Yemen’s borders. US policy has lagged behind these developments and does not reflect an understanding of Houthi or Iranian aspirations beyond Yemen’s civil war. Shared interests underpin the relationship between the Houthis and Iran and the Axis of Resistance. Houthi leaders uphold Iran’s Islamic Revolution as a model to follow, and Iran’s revisionist ideas and efforts to reshape the regional order resonate with them. They thus have found common ground with other Axis members seeking to change the status quo through force, including Hezbollah and Iraqi Shi’a militias, among others. For Iran, the Houthis initially presented an opportunity to threaten Saudi Arabia’s southern border, and Iran has led an effort to cultivate the Houthis as part of its network. The Houthis now rely on Iran and the Axis to retain certain capabilities necessary for their ongoing projection of power from Yemen and have begun to support Axis initiatives from which they do not necessarily benefit. Senior IRGC Quds Force and Hezbollah officials coordinate support to the Houthis. The effort to develop the Houthis’ military capabilities has transformed the Houthis’ threat. Previously, the Houthis could only defend their own territory. Now, they can project force far beyond Yemen’s borders. Iranian-sourced weapons include antiaircraft systems, ballistic missiles, short- and long-range UAVs, land-based IEDs, and WBIEDs. Many of these weapons were not present in Yemen before the war. A cadre of Quds Force and Hezbollah operatives are also on the ground in Yemen, training and advising the Houthis. Iran has formal diplomatic relations with the Houthi government, and Iranian diplomats have advanced Houthi interests on the international stage. Other Axis of Resistance members have developed relationships with the Houthis, hosting their representatives and promoting Houthi narratives. Additionally, IRGC- and Hezbollah-linked networks have provided the Houthis with financial support and fuel transfers. This report’s appendixes document the types of support by actor in detail.

2020

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

Following the UN-sponsored peace and national partnership agreement that was signed in late-September, the Houthis continue strengthening influence throughout the government. Yemeni President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi’s recent weakness will continue to be taken exploited. The geopolitical implications resulting from the Houthi takeover affects the geopolitical sectarian opponents in Saudi Arabia and Iran, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the United States and Russia. As Iran expands its sphere of influence throughout the Middle East, especially in Yemen, Riyadh views Tehran’s indirect involvement in Sana’a as a direct threat. Riyadh is facing threats from additional groups including the Islamic State (IS), Muslim Brotherhood, and other Shia militant groups. Productive talks between Tehran and Riyadh over the past six months prove meaningless as the Houthis political influence in Sana’a strengthens. As Houthis and Yemeni forces continue a coordinated offensive against militant groups, AQAP suffers minor setbacks from strategically held towns. Viewing the Shia power grab in Sana’a both as a threat and opportunity to expand the powerful al-Qaeda affiliate. Coupled with the Houthis lack of experience of fighting east of Sana’a, AQAP’s proven resilience and adaptability will benefit the group even as minor setbacks occur. While the interest in Yemen for Washington and Moscow falls short compared to Saudi Arabia and Iran, the destabilized regime threatens U.S. counterterrorism strategy while offering Russia an increased opportunity for arms sales. As attention continues to focus on Iraq and Syria, the growing shift of power within the Yemeni government will continue, affecting regional and non-regional actors with interests in Yemen.

Türkiye İran Araştımaları Dergisi, 2022

Revolutionary process in Yemen that begun in February 2011 ended up with the Houthi movement’s (that is also called Ansarollah) takeover of Sanaa, the capital city, on September 21, 2014. The takeover has drawn attention to Houthis’ ties with Iran and unleashed a debate on whether the Houthi movement is a new proxy of Tehran. Likewise, subsequent military intervention of Saudi-led international coalition to re- verse the Houthis march to power is also discussed within the framework of a proxy war between Riyad and Tehran. However, the frame of proxy relationship leads to the underestimation of multi-layered, inter- sected confrontations among a multitude of actors, and changing characteristics of the protracted conflict. Indeed, the conflict in Yemen has evolved from the Houthi uprising to a prolonged civil war that drew lead- ing regional powers and had regional ramifications. The Houthis also turned from local insurgents to na- tional actors, and to virtually regional players. Unfolding of the Yemeni conflict from a local insurgency to a protractive regional conflict has also transformed the Houthis’ relations with Tehran. This article aimed at elaborating the Houthis’ changing relations with Iran over the course of time. It is argued that initially there was a distant relationship between the Houthis and Iran, which evolved in two decades into a close relationship of “brothers in arms”.

2015

The delicate balance of Yemen’s political transition, supported by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Initiative, is in danger of breaking up as a result of two opposing forces: an alternative political project represented by Ansar Allah, based on the country’s tribal and religious traditions, and the Jihadi utopia of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and the self-declared Islamic State (Daesh). The two competing centres of power in Sana’a and Aden are acting as poles for the regional tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran and their respective allies. The risk of a military escalation that might suck in the countries of the region, in the context of an unprecedented humanitarian crisis in Yemen, requires the International Community’s urgent attention.

Digest of Middle East Studies, 2016

This article examines the role of Iran in Yemen within the context of Arab-Iranian relations. It also examines the debate on the involvement of Iran in the ongoing political developments in Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. The article focuses on the Houthi Movement in Yemen, its origin, growth and political expansion. It also investigates its relations with Iran and its allies in the region, and discusses other factors that strengthened its political image in Yemen. The article also provides an early assessment of the implication of the Decisive Storm military led by Saudi Arabia.

Theme: The political transition in Yemen has entered a critical stage after the Houthi movement's takeover of Sana'a and President Hadi's flight to Aden. The polarisation of the political forces reflects the growing tensions in the region and could end in an open military conflict.

Arab Reform Initiative , 2016

This paper discusses the Houthi- Saleh alliance, its reasons and future.

MES Insights, 2017

As Yemen's internal war continues to drag on with no end in sight, there is increased risk of miscalculations that may lead to further escalation and internationalization of the conflict. Increased regional and international geopolitical competition, continued efforts to combat the threat of international terrorism and Islamic extremism emanating from the region, and maritime security concerns that threaten the global economy and freedom of navigation have only increased Yemen's strategic importance to the national security agendas of regional and international actors alike. 1 Such considerations have not been lost on Yemen's domestic incumbent and insurgent elites, contributing, in part, to political and military strategies that seek to manage but not entirely eliminate internal security threats that pose challenges to the national security interests of regional and international actors. As such, Houthi expansionism and the ongoing internal war may be better understood in the context of the development of a domestic elite strategic culture that has contributed to perpetual insecurity and internal war in Yemen. Strategic culture can be described as traditional practices and habits of thought by which military force is organized and employed by a society in the service of its political goals. When viewed through the lens of strategic culture, Houthi expansionism, and internal war in Yemen generally, should not be viewed as an aberration that seeks to change the status quo. Rather, it should be considered a continuation of established political norms and military-decision making institutionalized under the regime of Ali Abdullah Saleh, which seeks to balance a host of internal and external actors and potential threats within an environment dominated by elite competition and internal factionalization, in the absence of effective state institutions and a clear monopoly on the use of violence by the state. Such a governing strategy has contributed to the proliferation of militias and other irregular and non-state forces, military factionalization, and increasingly the formation of civil-military relations akin to warlordism, in which military and/or tribal elites exercise civil power at a local or regional level through their influence and control of militias. 2 Within this domestic environment, the military has played a central role in linking a number of disparate groups to the regime, while at the same time factionalization has allowed for effective divide and rule tactics to shield the regime from reprisal. Furthermore, the dependence of the Yemeni economy on a combination of oil revenues, remittances, and, increasingly, foreign aid has left the Yemeni government vulnerable to external market forces and shocks associated with geopolitical competition. Within this geopolitical setting, internal war and perpetual insecurity threatening regional and international interests have supported a growing war economy and helped to prop up the armed forces as a central player in patronage politics and the economy writ large through its role in the tribal-military-commercial complex and the Yemen Economic Corporation (YECO)—formerly the Military Economic Corporation or MECO—, which has its hands in nearly all facets of the Yemeni economy and serves as a conduit for foreign aid. 3 ............(Read on)..............

The paper refers to three phases experienced by the group in relation to the agreements. During these phase, it changed its behavior towards those agreements. The first phase dates back to the six wars, when the Houthis used multiple tactics to adapt to the transformation that the group was experiencing due to preparations for a new leadership. The Houthis also exploited the agreements in order to survive the attacks of the army and the tribes loyal to it, and to secure sources of arms supplies. The Houthis used the fragile political situation and the conflicts between the opposition and the authorities as a means to perpetuate their existence as a rebel group under pressure. During that phase, the Houthis exploited the discontents of the local population against the authorities to recruit more fighters. Houthis also used the agreements at that stage to build barricades, dig trenches, and recruit more fighters from other provinces. Naturally, signs of rebellion surfaced in areas near Sana'a. Then, the Houthis attacked Saudi Arabia in order to assure the Iranians that they were confronting their regional opponent, and to secure the sympathy of the local population by conveying the feeling that they were under attack! During the second phase (2011-2014), the group used various tactics ranging from signing "non-aggression" agreements with the tribes, especially before the fall of Sana'a, to isolating the powerful tribes as an initial step before striking them hard when they could receive no help from other tribes. This stage also shows the Houthi exploitation of the events of 2011 to control and isolate Saada. During the next two years, the Houthi group secured the flow of weapons from Midi port in Hajjah to Saada, and took advantage of the democratic openness during that period to recruit, presenting itself as a victim of the regime. It also manipulated the events to obtain weapons from Iran. During that time, the government seized the ship Jihan 1, which was on its way from Iran to the Houthis. This stage was characterized by the Houthis' elusiveness, and their failure to refer to the main goals. The group repeatedly stressed that its goal was not authority, the government, the state, or the tribe. It gradually modified its goals. It began its attack under the pretext that they were only confronting foreign Salafis in Dammaj, then the tribes that threatened them. The next target was "Al-Ahmar family" rather than Hashid tribe. In their attack to take over Amran Governorate, the Houthi stated that their goal was to change of the governor and the leadership of the 310th Armored Brigade and not the Yemeni Islah Party or the tribes of Amran.