A military engagement, whether brief or protracted, can spawn an unlimited number of unintended consequences. A close look at the circumstances surrounding the act can, however, produce an understanding of some of the more likely effects that would otherwise have surprised the military actor. Now that the U.S. is bombing Houthi targets in Yemen, let’s review several of the more likely unintended consequences for Israel, the United States and the upcoming presidential election.
As quickly as Israel managed to turn the sympathy of world opinion following the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre into condemnation for its brutal campaign in Gaza, the West’s view of Israeli action may soften even faster as the U.S. and U.K. launch missiles into Houthi strongholds in Yemen.
Disapproval of Israel’s brutal campaign against Hamas has, especially on the part of American liberals, been sharply on the rise. If the U.S. and its allies were to become ensconced in a fight to free up the Red Sea shipping lanes that are critical to international trade, the repercussions for Israel could represent good or bad news — or both.
The bad news is that any widening of the war against Iranian proxies could pose unprecedented risks to Israel. The good news for the Jewish State is that this scenario carries with it the potential attenuation of the West’s condemnation of Israel’s bloodletting in Gaza.
To date, the United States and much of the rest of the West perceive Oct. 7 and Israel’s subsequent invasion of Gaza as an Israel-Hamas conflagration, a fight in which the U.S. is secondarily, but not directly, involved. If the action in Yemen and the protection of shipping routes develops into a firefight of any length with the Houthis — and perhaps even with Iran itself — our perspective on the hostilities in the Middle East expands.
Rather than a mere sponsor of a country embroiled in battle, America would be Israel’s partner in a regional battle in which our critical interest in unfettered commerce was at stake. As allies in the combat against the proxies of Iran, it would be natural to take a more sympathetic view of Israel.
A more sympathetic or deferential view of Israel isn’t a game-changing benefit to a small country facing neighbors determined to drive it into the sea. But it may produce a vital benefit. For example, a bevy of Democratic senators, upset with the well over 20,000 reported deaths of civilians and the wholesale destruction of Gazan housing and infrastructure, are challenging President Biden’s unilateral shipments of armaments to Israel, insisting on a deeper look by Congress into the carnage in Gaza and on Congress’s ultimate approval of the military and economic aid. If we find ourselves fighting as allies against radical Islamic factions, these Democrats may revert back to their prior reflexive military and political support of Israel and thus eliminate any delay in providing it.
Our direct action against the Houthis — or another terrorist organization, for that matter — could also present an issue for Republicans. Voters traditionally unify behind a president during American military engagements that, as with the Houthis, threaten an important national interest. An engagement during the run-up to a presidential election thus reflects a special challenge to GOP chances of recapturing the presidency.
Since President Biden can do no right in the eyes of Republicans in today’s political climate, the GOP would face the dilemma of critiquing an American military action that seems a lot like the kind of response Donald Trump would’ve given. Republicans have, however, mastered the art of contrariness, and when commenting on Biden’s entry into the fighting may well chant the tired pivot that, if Trump was president, he never would have allowed the situation to deteriorate to this point in the first place.
Upon breaking a rack of balls, the casual pool player has little understanding of where the balls will land. A veteran player or a physics professor might, however, study the speed and trajectory of the cue ball and make predictions as to where some or all of the balls will come to a stop. Firing Tomahawk missiles into Houthi military facilities is, on the other hand, a sufficiently risk-laden activity to justify a good look at potential unintended consequences.
Jay Sterling Silver is a law professor emeritus at St. Thomas College of Law.