www.theguardian.com Open in urlscan Pro
2a04:4e42:600::367  Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

https://www.google.co.uk/search

<form action="https://www.google.co.uk/search" class="dcr-g8v7m4"><label for="src-component-1251403" class="dcr-0">
    <div class="dcr-suhoqp">Search input </div>
  </label><input type="text" id="src-component-1251403" aria-required="true" aria-invalid="false" aria-describedby="" required="" name="q" placeholder="Search" data-link-name="nav2 : search" tabindex="-1" class="selectableMenuItem dcr-1975ymr"><label
    class="dcr-0">
    <div class="dcr-suhoqp">google-search </div>
    <div class="dcr-190ztmi"><svg width="30" viewBox="-3 -3 30 30" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" aria-hidden="true">
        <path fill-rule="evenodd" clip-rule="evenodd"
          d="M9.273 2c4.023 0 7.25 3.295 7.25 7.273a7.226 7.226 0 0 1-7.25 7.25C5.25 16.523 2 13.296 2 9.273 2 5.295 5.25 2 9.273 2Zm0 1.84A5.403 5.403 0 0 0 3.84 9.274c0 3 2.409 5.454 5.432 5.454 3 0 5.454-2.454 5.454-5.454 0-3.023-2.454-5.432-5.454-5.432Zm7.295 10.887L22 20.16 20.16 22l-5.433-5.432v-.932l.91-.909h.931Z">
        </path>
      </svg><span class="dcr-1p0hins">Search</span></div>
  </label><button type="submit" aria-live="polite" aria-label="Search with Google" data-link-name="nav2 : search : submit" tabindex="-1" class="dcr-1ykfoy6">
    <div class="src-button-space"></div><svg width="30" viewBox="-3 -3 30 30" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" aria-hidden="true">
      <path fill-rule="evenodd" clip-rule="evenodd" d="M1 12.956h18.274l-7.167 8.575.932.932L23 12.478v-.956l-9.96-9.985-.932.932 7.166 8.575H1v1.912Z"></path>
    </svg>
  </button><input type="hidden" name="as_sitesearch" value="www.theguardian.com"></form>

Text Content

Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation
Print subscriptions
Sign in
Search jobs
Search
US edition
 * US edition
 * UK edition
 * Australia edition
 * International edition
 * Europe edition

The Guardian - Back to homeThe Guardian


SUPPORT THE GUARDIAN

Fund independent journalism with $5 per month
Support us

Support us
 * News
 * Opinion
 * Sport
 * Culture
 * Lifestyle

ShowMoreShow More
 * News
   * View all News
   * US news
   * World news
   * Environment
   * US politics
   * Ukraine
   * Soccer
   * Business
   * Tech
   * Science
   * Newsletters
   * Wellness
   
 * Opinion
   * View all Opinion
   * The Guardian view
   * Columnists
   * Letters
   * Opinion videos
   * Cartoons
   
 * Sport
   * View all Sport
   * Soccer
   * NFL
   * Tennis
   * MLB
   * MLS
   * NBA
   * NHL
   * F1
   * Golf
   
 * Culture
   * View all Culture
   * Film
   * Books
   * Music
   * Art & design
   * TV & radio
   * Stage
   * Classical
   * Games
   
 * Lifestyle
   * View all Lifestyle
   * Wellness
   * Fashion
   * Food
   * Recipes
   * Love & sex
   * Home & garden
   * Health & fitness
   * Family
   * Travel
   * Money
 * Search input
   google-search
   Search
   
   
    * Support us
    * Print subscriptions

   US edition
   * UK edition
   * Australia edition
   * International edition
   * Europe edition
   
 * * Search jobs
   * Digital Archive
   * Guardian Puzzles app
   * Guardian Licensing
   * About Us
   * The Guardian app
   * Video
   * Podcasts
   * Pictures
   * Inside the Guardian
   * Guardian Weekly
   * Crosswords
   * Wordiply
   * Corrections
   * Facebook
   * Twitter
 * * Search jobs
   * Digital Archive
   * Guardian Puzzles app
   * Guardian Licensing
   * About Us

 * World
 * Europe
 * US
 * Americas
 * Asia
 * Australia
 * Middle East
 * Africa
 * Inequality
 * Global development


A view from the bridge of HMS Diamond: missiles are fired at sites used by
Houthi rebels in the Red Sea. Photograph: AP
A view from the bridge of HMS Diamond: missiles are fired at sites used by
Houthi rebels in the Red Sea. Photograph: AP
The ObserverYemen



WHOEVER RULES THE WAVES RULES THE WORLD... THE RED SEA CRISIS WILL SHOW US IF
THAT’S TRUE

Kim Darroch



The case for action was strong. But previous interventions have stark warnings
for the US and Britain

Sun 14 Jan 2024 05.00 ESTLast modified on Sun 14 Jan 2024 10.29 EST
 * 
 * 
 * 



We all woke on Friday to the news of US/UK airstrikes on Yemen. Our TV screens
were filled with images of RAF bombers taking off into a Mediterranean night
sky, and seemingly random explosions briefly illuminating nameless, darkened
landscapes, as in some slow-motion video game. But real strategic objectives are
involved here, and real people: British and American pilots risking their lives,
Yemenis on the ground beneath the bombs.

It is a disconcertingly familiar set of images, evoking the US/UK/France bombing
of Syria in 2018, the British-French bombing of Muammar Gaddafi’s forces in
Libya in 2011, and the “shock and awe” campaign in Iraq in 2003. How did these
end? Not so well. But nor did the one that didn’t happen: the proposed Obama-led
US/UK/France airstrikes on Bashar al-Assad’s forces after they used chemical
weapons against their own population in 2013.



In August 2013, I was UK national security adviser. I vividly remember sitting
in the basement of No 10 one sunny Saturday afternoon, listening to a Barack
Obama phone call to David Cameron. The US proposition was limited: “surgical”
airstrikes on Syrian government forces, if possible as soon as Sunday evening.
But UN inspectors were still in Syria, and the timetable slipped, creating time
for national security council and cabinet discussions and, fatefully, the recall
of parliament.

> Some saw this a strategic tipping point from which the west has never
> recovered

As the public records will eventually show, there was a proper process. The MoD
and the military crawled over the US plans and targets and concluded that, far
from shock and awe, the proposition was, if anything, too limited, too surgical,
and an insufficiently tough signal to Assad. The FCO analysed the likely
international reaction. The lawyers built the case for the action being
consistent with international law. At the NSC, solemn-faced cabinet ministers
spoke in turn: most supported, two sat on the fence. It was the antithesis of
much-criticised “sofa government”. And yet, in the end, what was it worth? In
the House of Commons, MPs voted to absolve their consciences over their support
for the 2003 Iraq invasion and the day was lost by 13 votes: the first time a
British government had lost a vote on military action since 1782.

A few days later, Obama abandoned his plans for US airstrikes, settling for a
deal involving Syrian promises to surrender their chemical weapons capability.
Obama later asserted that was one of the best decisions he ever took: read David
Cameron’s autobiography for a sharply different view. The Assad government
eventually won its civil war, at the cost of the comprehensive destruction of
the country, while Russia and Iran extended their reach and influence. Some saw
this as a strategic tipping point from which the west has never recovered. So,
the historical precedents are discouraging. Interventions led to western forces
getting bogged down in seemingly endless wars. Standing back surrendered
territory and advantage to our enemies. Can the story be different this time?
The case for action is strong. Some 15% of global trade passes through the Red
Sea. Houthi attacks might claim to single out shipping bound for Israeli ports,
but the reality is that they are indiscriminate and target whoever is passing.
And sending cargo vessels around the much longer Cape of Good Hope route adds
hugely to shipping costs. According to Copenhagen-based shipping analyst Peter
Sand, $1m worth of extra fuel per voyage. These extra costs surface at the
shopping till and risk renewed inflation just as central banks are getting it
under control. They would compound economic woes on both sides of the Atlantic.

Biden’s ratings are under water in part because of widespread despair about the
American economy, while the Conservatives are facing a headwind comprising low
to non-existent growth, a cost of living crisis, high energy and mortgage costs
and stubborn inflation.

> Conservatives are facing a headwind comprising low to non-existent growth, a
> cost of living crisis, high energy and mortgage costs and stubborn inflation

And surely two of the most powerful and advanced air forces in the world can see
off some 20,000 Houthi militia? Well, maybe. The Saudis and Emiratis, with their
expensive, western-supplied aircraft, spent seven years trying to bomb the
Houthis into defeat and failed. US and UK airstrikes will certainly do
substantial damage to Houthi capability, destroying radar stations, command and
control centres and stocks of drones, missiles and helicopters. But they won’t
get it all. The Iranians appear ready to pay for indefinite restocking. Some of
the weapons of this particular war, such as drones and small, fast boats, are
inexpensive and can be acquired in bulk. Yet, these weapons can do significant
damage to large, expensive western vessels: we know from the Falklands how
destructive a single missile can be. The 20-odd US warships in the eastern
Mediterranean and Gulf will be costing billions. And the Americans know most of
the shipping going through the Red Sea and Suez Canal is destined for European,
not US, ports.



All of which means that this is a high-risk operation, riven with uncertainty.
Yet there is something old-fashioned, almost quixotic, about what Joe Biden and
Rishi Sunak are doing. They may not realise it, but they are actually followers
of the great 19th-century American naval strategist, Alfred Thayer Mahan, who
wrote in his definitive work, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History: “Whoever
rules the waves rules the world.” Moreover, they are standing up for the postwar
world order. International law should prevail, western values should dominate,
anarchy should be challenged, order be restored – and the sea lanes should be
kept open. But in this age of the populist and the strongman, the political
careers of Biden and Sunak hang by a thread. Both face elections within the next
12 months. Both are well behind in their opinion polls. This could be a turning
point for one or the other. Or it could be the last gasp of the old order. I for
one hope their intervention succeeds.

Sir Kim Darroch was UK national security adviser from 2012-2015 and British
ambassador to the US from 2016-2019

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like
to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it
to us at observer.letters@observer.co.uk

Explore more on these topics
 * Yemen
 * Opinion
 * Middle East and north Africa
 * Syria
 * Israel-Gaza war
 * Joe Biden
 * Rishi Sunak
 * Houthis
 * comment

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Reuse this content





MOST VIEWED


MOST VIEWED



 * World
 * Europe
 * US
 * Americas
 * Asia
 * Australia
 * Middle East
 * Africa
 * Inequality
 * Global development

 * News
 * Opinion
 * Sport
 * Culture
 * Lifestyle

Original reporting and incisive analysis, direct from the Guardian every morning
Sign up for our email

 * About us
 * Help
 * Complaints & corrections
 * SecureDrop
 * Work for us
 *  
 * Privacy policy
 * Cookie policy
 * Terms & conditions
 * Contact us

 * All topics
 * All writers
 * Digital newspaper archive
 * Facebook
 * YouTube
 * Instagram
 * LinkedIn
 * Twitter
 * Newsletters

 * Advertise with us
 * Guardian Labs
 * Search jobs


Back to top
© 2024 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights
reserved. (dcr)