The US military campaign against the Houthis, launched by President Donald Trump’s administration in mid-March 2025, has been the most intense in years. Over the span of less than two months, the United States conducted nearly 1,000 airstrikes targeting Houthi positions. A ceasefire was declared by both parties on May 6, 2025, when President Trump announced that the Houthis had expressed a desire to halt hostilities, leading to a cessation of US airstrikes against them. On the Houthi side, Amin al-Barai, assistant director of the so-called Moral Guidance Department, revealed that understandings had been reached between the Houthis and the Trump administration. These understandings stipulated that Houthi forces would refrain from targeting US troops in exchange for a halt to American attacks. He added, however, that this agreement does not extend to Israel.
In this analysis, we explore the motivations and dimensions of the ceasefire between the Houthis and the United States, the influential role played by Iran in facilitating the agreement, and the notable exclusion of Israel from the US-Houthi deal, which was reportedly brokered through Omani mediation. The ceasefire agreement between the United States and the Houthis can be interpreted through various political factors and contexts, the most prominent of which are:
Timing Factor
The truce coincides with ongoing US-Iran nuclear negotiations. The success of these talks is closely tied to a de-escalation in Houthi attacks against the United States. Washington has explicitly linked Houthi military actions to Iranian influence both before and after the launch of its military campaign on March 15, 2025. Tehran welcomed the ceasefire, and this support was more than just a media statement. Iran appears to be trying to define the boundaries of the conflict, employing a push-and-pull strategy—calming tensions with Washington while escalating against Tel Aviv. This is not aimed at ending military tensions, but rather at setting the stage for nuclear negotiations with Washington. According to sources cited by The New York Times, Iran played a direct role in pressuring the Houthis to halt their attacks on US ships.
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Influence
The Trump administration’s response also aligns with the wishes of the GCC states, led by Saudi Arabia, which sought to defuse regional tensions and ensure the safety of international maritime navigation. These nations emphasized intensifying efforts to promote regional peace and support a comprehensive political resolution in Yemen. Several Gulf and Arab countries issued statements welcoming the Omani-brokered ceasefire agreement. GCC Secretary-General Jasem Albudaiwi praised Oman’s role and reaffirmed its commitment to regional security and stability.
Cost Considerations
The US campaign caused significant damage to the Houthis’ military infrastructure, including missile launch platforms, camps, and ports that generate substantial revenue. While the Houthis did not disclose accurate human losses, the airstrikes also depleted their weapons stockpiles. Sources reported that four US officials confirmed intelligence indicating that the Houthis were seeking an exit strategy after enduring seven weeks of bombardment.
On the American side, the campaign reportedly cost around $1 billion. Pentagon planners expressed concern over the depletion of precision-guided munitions, which might be needed in other potential conflicts. This raised strategic concerns about the sustainability of such operations.
International Power Struggles
The prolonged conflict in Yemen has extended into regions of strategic international interest, such as the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait. The Houthis have skilfully leveraged global power dynamics, taking advantage of opposition among certain international players to US policies. Some US reports suggest that certain foreign powers provided the Houthis with advanced technologies and satellite imagery, aiding their operations against the US and Israel. At the same time, ships belonging to these powers have continued to navigate the Red Sea safely, while Western shipping companies are forced to reroute via the Cape of Good Hope, incurring greater costs. This dynamic may have pressured Washington to seek a ceasefire, aiming to avoid a costly and prolonged war of attrition.
Furthermore, Western intelligence agencies still struggle to fully understand the opaque structure of the Houthi group, including its leadership and external affiliations—gaps that the Houthis have exploited to escalate their operations in ways that align with their interests and those of their international backers.
Exclusion of Israel
The exclusion of Israel from the ceasefire agreement is seen by many observers as a reflection of differing strategic visions between Washington and Tel Aviv regarding how to manage regional challenges, particularly Iran and the Houthis. While the US favours negotiations with Iran, Israel prefers a military approach aimed at destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities and neutralizing threats.
Similarly, the US has opted to halt its offensive against the Houthis, while Israel prefers a continued military campaign to weaken the group over an extended period. The US is also engaged in separate negotiations with Hamas in Doha over a ceasefire and the release of dual-national hostages—discussions that have taken place without Israeli participation.
Notably, the Trump administration’s willingness to negotiate with such a group, which is officially designated as a terrorist organization by the US, is an unprecedented shift from traditional foreign policy norms. Although there have been previous unofficial talks with such entities, these new negotiations are more formalized. An Israeli official emphasized this when he said, “Trump’s unconventional approach included bypassing close US ally Israel, which is not covered by the agreement.”
The ceasefire between the Houthis and the United States reflects a convergence of interests between Iran and its proxy forces. Whether this agreement is merely a tactical manoeuvre by Iran to ensure the success of nuclear negotiations and avoid military confrontation remains to be seen. Iran may view the ceasefire as a means to reduce economic sanctions and preserve its interests by using the Houthis as a strategic bargaining chip, without regard for the suffering of the Yemeni people.
From the US perspective, the military campaign was n ot aimed at resolving the Yemeni conflict or supporting the legitimate government, but rather at coercing the Houthis into stopping their attacks on international shipping and US vessels. The goal was limited to restoring maritime security, not achieving a comprehensive political solution for Yemen’s long-running crisis.
