Yemen: Britain’s announcement of its participation in the new US aggression on Yemen, made a month and a half after the operation began, has further exposed the failure of the Trump administration. London’s entry into the conflict comes amid a growing crisis for the White House in managing the Yemeni front, whether operationally, financially, or politically.

Britain’s Previous Experience Against Yemen Under the Biden Administration

Britain had previously taken part in the aggression led by the Biden administration against Yemen at the start of 2024, aimed at supporting the Israeli enemy by protecting Israeli shipping and halting Yemeni operations in support of Gaza. That experience proved disastrous for Britain. The Red Sea battle quickly exposed severe weaknesses in the Royal Navy, including its inability to intercept ballistic missiles and the need to travel vast distances to resupply ammunition. This revealed that the UK’s involvement was primarily symbolic—a means of boosting the headcount in Washington’s coalition to create an illusion of international consensus and mask the true goal of supporting Israel. The attempt failed, and Britain ultimately withdrew its warships from the region within months. Its involvement became purely media-oriented and superficial.

The backlash was significant: the British economy suffered a major blow, exports and imports were disrupted, and many companies dependent on Red Sea trade were affected. Even British markets faced shortages of key products such as tea. In maritime terms, the British vessel Rubymar became the first fully sunk ship by the Yemeni Armed Forces, while others, like the Marlin Luanda, sustained heavy damage.

This total failure may explain why the UK initially stayed out of the new US campaign launched by the Trump administration in mid-March—an operation with the same objectives as the previous one. The new US leadership had also assumed, wrongly, that it would achieve “decisive” outcomes within a short time frame. Recent American statements revealed that the Pentagon had planned to establish full air superiority over Yemen within one month, before moving into a second phase of aggression. This overconfidence likely led the Trump administration to initially disregard the need for symbolic British involvement.

Sharing the Burden of Failure and Losses

Given this background, Britain’s decision to join the new US campaign 45 days after it began suggests a harsh reality check for the Trump administration—one that forced it to revisit options it had earlier dismissed.

This is further confirmed by the timing. Just this week, the US Navy suffered a major blow when the USS Harry S. Truman lost an F-18 fighter jet during a large-scale Yemeni attack in the Red Sea, forcing the carrier to retreat to its northernmost reaches. This highlighted Washington’s widely acknowledged operational crisis in Yemen—its inability to damage Yemeni capabilities and its failure to maintain safe deployment of American forces in the region. US carriers are spending more time evading Yemeni strikes than projecting power, as President Al-Mashat had previously noted when confirming that the Truman had gone out of service.

American officials acknowledged in recent days that the Truman would soon be withdrawn, which military sources confirmed following the recent F-18 downing. This development is directly linked to the timing of Britain’s entry into the war.

The operational strain likely led the Trump administration to enlist Britain to share part of the load—especially amid mounting criticism over the risk to US aerial assets after losing eight MQ-9 drones and one F-18 in just a few weeks.

But operational burden is not the only factor the US wants Britain to help shoulder. Costs are also surging rapidly, intensifying political pressure on the White House. Recent American reports revealed that the new war has already cost $3 billion, amid growing concerns from senior US military figures about the depletion of expensive and difficult-to-replace munitions and resources.

In fact, from the beginning, cost-sharing was a major issue. Leaked “Signal” communications in March revealed explicit complaints from top US national security officials about the US bearing the full financial burden and a desire for Europe—especially the UK—to help cover the costs. These concerns have since expanded to include even Washington’s regional allies.

The timing of Britain’s entry into the campaign reflects a growing realization in Washington that the operational and financial assumptions underpinning the war—particularly its limited time frame—have collapsed. The US now appears desperate to involve others, as the situation spirals out of control.

Political Pressure and a Failing Strategy

Another motive for drawing Britain into the war is the deepening political crisis in Washington stemming from the Yemen campaign. US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has become the focus of a growing backlash, with critics blaming his inexperience for the failures in Yemen. Congress is also increasing pressure over US airstrikes that have killed Yemeni civilians. The administration may believe that involving Britain will deflect some of this criticism by portraying the war as an international, not unilateral, decision. However, this strategy already failed under the previous administration—and this time it may be too late.

Ultimately, Britain’s renewed involvement underscores just how deep the US quagmire has become—and highlights the inevitability of this coalition’s failure. British participation will not change the military reality on the ground, nor will it offer the White House real relief from the escalating costs and strategic drain. On the contrary, the repercussions for the UK—such as its ships once again facing Yemeni naval bans—will only further weaken its ability to support the US, even financially. In the end, Britain’s role may prove to be yet another burden for the failing war effort.

Translated by Almasirah English website