Averting Global Threats: Defending President Biden's Praiseworthy Approach in the Red Sea Conundrum

Allowing the Houthis to strike with no response sets a dangerous precedent; the U.S. and its allies must show strength, not just follow procedures. Critics of President Biden's actions must ask themselves: Should we let aggressors like the Houthis act without fear of consequence?

In the realm of international relations and military strategy, the actions of a nation, particularly one as influential as the United States, are often scrutinized and debated with fervor. The recent decision by President Joe Biden to authorize airstrikes against the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen, without seeking Congressional approval, has ignited a fiery debate in the political corridors of Washington D.C. In my view, President Biden's actions are 100% correct, irrespective of the critiques from his fellow party members, the Progressive Democrats.

The crux of my argument lies in understanding the nature of the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea. According to a statement from President Biden, these were direct responses to "unprecedented Houthi attacks against international maritime vessels in the Red Sea," involving the use of anti-ship ballistic missiles, a first in history. These attacks impacted more than 50 nations through 27 assaults on international shipping. The strategic importance of the Red Sea, a critical maritime route for global commerce, cannot be overstated. The Houthis' aggressive actions in this vital region posed not just a regional threat, but a global one, affecting international trade and security.

The Biden administration, in collaboration with the United Kingdom and backed by the Netherlands, Bahrain, Australia, and Canada, defended the airstrikes as being "in accordance with the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense, consistent with the UN Charter." This defense aligns with the international norm of self-defense, a principle widely recognized and respected in international law and relations.

Opposition to President Biden's decision primarily stems from Progressive Democrats in Congress, who argue that the action violated Article 1 of the Constitution, which necessitates Congressional approval for military actions. Representatives such as Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, Pramila Jayapal, Val Hoyle, Ro Khanna, and Mark Pocan have been vocal in their criticism, labeling the airstrikes as unconstitutional and an unacceptable violation of legislative authority. Their contention rests on the premise that every military intervention, regardless of its nature or urgency, requires prior Congressional approval. However, this perspective, while grounded in a constitutional framework, overlooks the practical realities of modern geopolitical challenges and the need for swift and decisive action in certain circumstances. The Houthis' attacks in the Red Sea represent a clear and immediate threat, not just to the United States and its allies, but to the international community at large. In such scenarios, the executive's ability to respond promptly to international threats is vital. This ability is not merely a matter of executive overreach, but a necessity for maintaining global stability and security.

The criticism also seems to ignore the global context in which these airstrikes occurred. The Houthi aggression in the Red Sea is not an isolated event but part of a larger pattern of destabilizing actions backed by Iran. Addressing such threats requires a strategic response that goes beyond mere diplomatic rhetoric. It necessitates a show of force and resolve, signaling to the Houthis and their backers that such actions will not be tolerated.

It is also worth pointing out that the argument put forth by Progressive Democrats seems to imply a double standard when it comes to dealing with threats. On the one hand, they demand adherence to legislative procedures for any military action, while on the other, they seem to overlook the actions of groups like the Houthis who blatantly violate international norms and pose a direct threat to global security. The question then arises: why should the Houthis be allowed to attack with impunity, while the United States and its allies are bound by procedural constraints that hinder their ability to respond effectively? This double standard is not just a theoretical issue but has practical implications. If the United States and its allies are perceived as hesitant or incapable of responding to threats due to internal political processes, it emboldens groups like the Houthis and their backers to continue their destabilizing actions. This could lead to a significant escalation of conflicts, endangering more lives and destabilizing entire regions.

The support from some Republicans, such as Sen. Roger Wicker, Sen. Joni Ernst, Sen. Rick Scott, Sen. Lindsey Graham, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, underscores the bipartisan understanding of the strategic necessity of these airstrikes. Their comments reflect a recognition of the need for a robust response to the Houthi aggression and a broader strategy to counter Iran's influence in the region.

Bold Measures

The Houthis, backed by Iran, have consistently demonstrated a pattern of aggressive behavior, posing a significant threat to international stability. In this context, adhering strictly to constitutional procedures, though important, must be balanced against the urgent need to address such imminent threats. The decision to conduct airstrikes against the Houthis was more than a response to an isolated incident; it was a crucial step towards safeguarding global peace and security.

President Biden's decision to authorize these airstrikes should be commended as a demonstration of strong and necessary leadership in the face of global threats. His actions send a clear message to rogue states like Iran and terrorist groups like the Houthis. Broadly speaking, force and power are the only languages understood by such aggressors. In a world where threats to peace and security are increasingly complex and immediate, the ability to respond swiftly and decisively is indispensable. The Biden administration's actions were not a departure from responsible governance, but rather a commitment to maintaining international stability and demonstrating the resolve of the United States in combating global aggression. This approach is essential in upholding the principles of peace and security in an increasingly volatile world.