The Paradox Of Peace Through Force: Trump's Houthi Offensive Tests US Credibility

President Donald Trump’s renewed military campaign in Yemen marks a striking departure from his long-standing anti-war rhetoric. Despite repeated pledges to avoid “endless wars” and a foreign policy defined by restraint, the United States is now executing its most expansive bombing operation since the war against ISIS—this time targeting Houthi forces in Yemen. The contradiction is as glaring as it is consequential: a commander-in-chief who vowed to disentangle the US from Middle Eastern conflicts has instead reignited one.

As the bombs fall and the strategic justifications remain murky, the campaign against the Houthis exposes a core inconsistency in Trump’s foreign policy doctrine. It is a vivid case of what might be called “peace through force”—a belief that overwhelming military action can achieve strategic stability without prolonged engagement. But history, regional dynamics, and Trump’s own political narrative suggest otherwise.

The Anti-War President?

From his 2016 campaign onward, Trump positioned himself as a vocal critic of America’s military interventions. He condemned the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as costly failures, attacked the foreign policy establishment for dragging the US into global conflicts, and promised to refocus on domestic priorities. “America First” was not just a trade slogan—it was a repudiation of liberal internationalism and neoconservative interventionism alike.

This anti-war stance resonated with a fatigued electorate, weary from two decades of overseas wars with uncertain outcomes. Trump’s withdrawal from Syria and partial drawdowns in Afghanistan were presented as proof of his commitment to avoid “forever wars.” Against this backdrop, his decision to launch a major bombing campaign in Yemen is not only strategically complex—it’s politically jarring.

Escalation Without Clarity

The scope of the current offensive is significant. Dozens of strikes have hit Houthi military installations, radar systems, and supply depots across Yemen. Naval and air assets have been deployed in support of the campaign, which is framed as a response to repeated Houthi attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandeb strait.

The stated objective is to protect global shipping lanes and deter future aggression. Yet there is no clear articulation of what constitutes success, how long the campaign will last, or what diplomatic outcome the US hopes to achieve. Is the goal to merely degrade Houthi capabilities, or to dismantle the group’s regional influence entirely? The absence of defined strategic endpoints invites comparison to past US operations that began as targeted responses but gradually expanded into prolonged commitments.

The Risk of Mission Creep

Without a concrete political strategy, the likelihood of mission creep is high. The Houthis, a well-armed and ideologically entrenched group, are unlikely to be easily deterred by airstrikes alone. Their resilience during Saudi Arabia’s multi-year campaign offers a cautionary tale: asymmetric actors with local legitimacy often absorb conventional bombardment and adapt. Retaliatory attacks on US or allied interests could draw Washington further into a conflict it neither intended nor fully understands.

This cycle—initial airstrikes followed by escalation in the absence of a negotiated framework—has defined several recent US interventions, including Libya in 2011 and Iraq in the early 2000s. In each case, the use of force without sustained diplomatic engagement or post-conflict planning resulted in long-term instability and unintended consequences.

A Credibility Gap Opens

The implications of the Yemen strikes are not limited to battlefield dynamics—they also cut deep into US political and strategic credibility.

Domestically, Trump risks alienating the very base that applauded his non-interventionist stance. While many voters support robust national defense, they do not necessarily equate it with open-ended military campaigns. Should US personnel suffer casualties or should the operation drag on inconclusively, political support could erode quickly—especially among voters who remember Trump’s anti-war promises as core to his leadership brand.

Internationally, the inconsistency between Trump’s rhetoric and actions muddles America’s strategic posture. Allies are left uncertain whether the US will act as a restrained power or an unpredictable aggressor. Adversaries may interpret the strikes as a temporary show of force rather than a coherent regional strategy—inviting both escalation and opportunism.

The ambiguity undermines long-term deterrence: credibility is not simply a function of strength, but of consistent and predictable behavior. Incoherence diminishes the power of deterrence as much as weakness does.

Can Force Alone Achieve Stability?

There is a broader question to be asked about the utility of military force in situations like Yemen. The Houthis are not a traditional army, but a political and religious movement with deep local roots and strong regional backing from Iran. Their survival is not solely dependent on military infrastructure that can be destroyed from the air.

Even if the strikes inflict tactical damage, they do not address the underlying drivers of the conflict—sectarian grievances, regional rivalries, and governance vacuums. Without a diplomatic component or a vision for post-conflict stability, airpower alone cannot secure US interests or regional peace.

Furthermore, heavy bombardment risks collateral damage and civilian casualties, which could provoke international condemnation and further radicalize local populations. The very act of intervention, without meaningful engagement, may create more enemies than it neutralizes.

Conclusion: A Strategic and Political Contradiction

Trump’s bombing campaign against the Houthis illustrates a fundamental contradiction in his foreign policy: the simultaneous rejection of war and reliance on force as the first response to international crises. This paradox weakens both strategic coherence and political trust.

By escalating military involvement in Yemen without a clear endgame, the administration risks repeating the errors of previous interventions—substituting firepower for strategy and rhetoric for results. The campaign may yield temporary deterrence, but at the cost of long-term credibility.

If Trump seeks to maintain his image as the president who “ended wars,” he must reconcile his instinct for bold military gestures with the demands of sustainable diplomacy. Otherwise, the US may find itself once again entangled in a conflict that neither its leadership nor its public truly wants.

Author: Ricardo Goulart