To expand a little, I don't understand how the Houthis have support right now, outside of support that is specifically about destabilizing the entire region. Which is why I don't see your brief paragraph being enough to explain things. You do mention US support in there; who else is involved? And why?
It may or may not be the case that they're disrupting shipping at the direction of Iran, but it almost certainly is the case that Iran equipped them, and that Iran can effectively instruct them to stop.
It's hard to make any kind of comment on a thread here without getting pulled towards one pole or another of the ongoing argument about what's happening in MENA right now; I'm doing my best to keep this as dry as possible, and to hedge statements by saying things like "the conventional geopolitical answer". You can find alternate geopolitical answers; in fact, you can probably find any answer you're looking for. All I can do is relay what I'm reading.
https://consortiumnews.com/2023/11/04/asad-abukhalil-nasrall...
That article has a few quirks (e.g., derisively referencing George Soros), but I found some of the small details in it add to its overall credibility, like how a portrait of Nasrallah was visible in Soleimani's house when Soleimani's family members were mourning his death.
* I usually treat references to George Soros as antisemitic dog whistles, but the author is normally a strident opponent of antisemitism, so I don't know what to think in this instance.
> When it comes to war with Israel, Nasrallah is the ultimate decision maker.
I think my main question is what valid paths forward do people see here? I honestly don't know how to find news that isn't dominated by posturing, at the moment.
Once, the Romans has Gaul problems. They used a generous application of excessive violence, and it was effective.
Once, the US has native-Americans problems. They used a generous application of excessive violence, and it was effective.
Once, the Nazis has Jews problems. They used a generous application of excessive violence, and it was effective.
Once, Israel has Palestinian problems. They use a generous application of excessive violence, and it IS effective.
That said, you have to hold your own accountable for bad acts. Doesn't mean none will ever happen, of course. Nor does it mean that you cannot have legitimate concerns and claims. And your response to a terrorist act cannot legitimately be to try to minimize it. Nor is it a valid response to rapid fire old grievances, many of which are misrepresented or where the people involved were held accountable.
So, in spirit of your criticism, let's try and move past it. You don't know the best path. What are some valid paths?
I suspect that Iran isn't in any sense ordering the Houthis to do anything, and the idea to attack shipping is entirely germinated from the Houthis themselves (largely as a form of "showing support" for Palestinians, even if, as a few people have noted, this action only hurts them while providing them no meaningful aide). Largely, this is because it's colossally stupid for Iran to push for a provocation that is meaningfully likely to see all the major world powers (except for maybe Russia; note that China is going to be on the US's side here) create a coalition to eliminate a troublesome menace.
The nuance is that not everyone agrees about US backed hegemony in the region. The goal isn’t to “destabilize”/whatever neutered phrase the pentagon is using, the goal is to assert a different political order. The language you’re using here takes the current state of affairs as neutral or a given when it is not.
The details are of course incredibly complicated, but the basic observation that weapons and money flow out of Tehran is straightforward.
They've got a huge amount of popular support in the Middle East, because so many people there hate Israel, and see the Houthis as the only ones standing up to Israel (apart from Hamas and Hezbollah). I don't have a source, but if you ever happened to check the comments on Middle East TikTok videos you'd see what I mean.