Who Silenced the Houthis? Analyzing the Sudden Halt in Red Sea Attacks

The Eerie Silence of the Gulf

The geopolitical chaos that defined the early years of the current decade seems to have paused on the Bab al-Mandab strait. For months, the world watched as the Iran-backed Houthis (Ansar Allah), operating out of Yemen, launched waves of missile and drone attacks on Red Sea commercial vessels, ostensibly in solidarity with Hamas and against Israel-linked shipping.

Yet, now the guns have fallen silent. Attacks on Red Sea voyages are virtually unheard of. This abrupt cessation of hostilities raises a critical question: Who ordered the retreat, and what made this choice?

This pause comes amid a torrent of regional change: a new, yet-to-be-confirmed White House administration, the temporary end of the major Israel-Hamas conflict phase, the death of a hardline Iranian president, and months of retaliatory U.S. and Israeli strikes on Yemen. Analyzing these factors reveals that the Houthi silence is less likely a surrender and more likely a complex, multi-layered strategic pause orchestrated by necessity, negotiation, and Tehran.

Scenario 1: The Iranian Imperative (The Puppet Master’s Pause)

The most plausible and significant factor is the calculated strategic decision made in Tehran. The Houthis are the most prominent and effective element of Iran’s regional “Axis of Resistance.” However, maintaining an active, highly visible, and costly front in the Red Sea became a liability for Iran after a series of geopolitical events.

Domestic Pressure and the Loss of Ebrahim Raisi

The sudden death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash signaled a period of unexpected internal instability and succession maneuvers within Iran’s hardline political structure. Tehran’s priority immediately shifted to domestic security, political consolidation, and maintaining stability during the transition period. An active, volatile war front that invites U.S. and Israeli retaliation and risks triggering a wider regional conflict, was too much of a distraction. Besides the hardliners getting sidelined with the electing of Masoud Pezeshkian, along with a number of IRGC assassinations carried out by Israel, the support structure and the enthusiasm to bankroll and back the Houthis waned.

The Cost of Success and Strategic Overstretch

The Houthi attacks achieved their primary goal: regional prominence and disruption of global trade. But this success came at a steep price: months of sustained, punishing U.S. and Israeli airstrikes against key Houthi military infrastructure, including radar sites, command centers, and missile depots.

Iran’s calculus is simple: Preservation over Performance. Continuing the attacks would guarantee the slow, systematic destruction of the very assets (drones, missiles, launch sites) that took years and billions of dollars to build. The order from Tehran would have been a practical one: “The point is made; now stop exposing our assets and go dark to regroup.”

Scenario 2: The Ceasefire Condition (The Quiet Deal)

While the U.S. and Israel have publicly denied negotiating directly with the Houthis, the silence strongly correlates with the cessation of the major ground phase of the Israel-Hamas conflict. President Trump and his envoy Steve Witkoff are known for unconventional deal-making, albeit claiming victory here.

The Houthis repeatedly stated their mission was to stop the siege and assault on Gaza. When the Israeli offensive paused due to international pressure or strategic necessity, the Houthis lost their primary, publicly acceptable justification for the Red Sea attacks.

The Unspoken Understanding

The U.S. and Israel were using resources and political capital to address both Gaza and the Red Sea simultaneously. The silence suggests a possible, unspoken quid pro quo, either directed through Oman or another regional mediator: “If the Gaza conflict cools, the Red Sea conflict must cool.” The Houthi leadership likely received firm, private messaging that continued attacks would invite a much more aggressive, non-retaliatory campaign specifically aimed at collapsing their military structure, possibly targeting high-level political figures.

The reported death of several lower-to-mid-level Houthi and Yemeni politicians in targeted strikes may not have been the cause of the silence, but a clear message that the cost of continued action was escalating dramatically.

Scenario 3: Strategic Pause, Rearming, and Regime Maintenance

Even without direct orders from Tehran, the Houthi leadership would have faced a practical realization that mandated a pause:

A. Weapon Depletion and Resupply

Months of intensive launches, combined with persistent U.S./Israeli interdiction, inevitably drew down the Houthis’ stockpiles of cruise missiles and drones. The Red Sea silence is almost certainly a necessary operational pause for rearming and resupplying. Iran needs time to smuggle replacement components through its complex maritime and land supply routes. This is a classic military strategy: retreat into the shadows to mend and reload.

B. The Threat to Regime Stability

The U.S. and Israeli strikes did not just target military bases; they targeted the Houthis’ public image of invulnerability. Continued attacks that resulted in constant failure and infrastructure destruction risked alienating the local Yemeni population, whose support is crucial for the Houthi regime’s internal stability.

Scenario 4: The Great Power Mediators (Moscow and Beijing’s Subtle Hand)

A deeper geopolitical layer to the Houthi silence involves the quiet, yet crucial, influence of Russia and China. Both nations, while not aligned with the Houthis’ ideology, saw the Red Sea attacks as a useful catalyst in their long-term confrontation with the West.

A. Russia: The Economic and Strategic Calculus
For Moscow, the Houthi campaign initially presented opportunities, not threats. Although the Houthis occasionally misfired on a few tankers carrying Russian oil, they were never designated as enemies; in the grander strategic theatre, they were tactical allies. Every successful attack on the Bab al-Mandab helped to: Increase Energy Prices: Global supply disruption contributed to higher oil and gas prices, directly bolstering Russian economic gains necessary to fund its ongoing conflicts.

Popularize Alternative Routes: The chaos strengthened the commercial appeal of Russian-led trade routes, such as the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) and the Northern Sea Route (NSR) around the Arctic. However, Moscow’s tolerance has limits. The attacks risked descending into an uncontrollable regional war that could destabilize key trading partners or accidentally target critical Russian interests. Russia, therefore, benefits most when the Houthi threat is present but dormant, a strategic weapon in reserve, not actively being depleted.

B. China: The Costly Ally and the Strategic Distraction

China, the world’s largest energy importer, initially viewed the safety of sea lanes as paramount, making the Houthis a seemingly costly ally shooting at its core commercial interests. Yet, China gained profound, subtle benefits from the crisis:

Pinning Down the U.S. Military: The Houthi military engagements kept American naval and air assets pinned down in a distant theatre, diverting U.S. focus and resources away from the primary zone of strategic competition, the Indo-Pacific.

Strategic Narrative Shift: The world’s attention was forcibly reoriented around the Red Sea instead of focusing on negative reporting regarding the South China Sea, where China is often portrayed as a threat to smaller nations.

Insulated Oil Supply: Crucially, a significant portion of China’s oil began reaching them through safe Russian pipelines and shipping sources, insulating Beijing from the Red Sea chaos and minimizing commercial losses.

C. The Diplomatic Imperative: Preserving the Asset

Neither Beijing nor Moscow wanted the Houthis destroyed by sustained Western firepower. They prefer to sustain the group as a persistent, low-cost strategic headache for the U.S. Both powers possess significant diplomatic leverage over the Houthis, primarily through Iran, but also directly at the UN and through bilateral engagement.

The Houthi silence, therefore, is highly likely a result of joint, persuasive pressure from the Russia-China-Iran bloc. The message would have been clear: “The geopolitical objective is achieved. Do not destroy the asset. Retreat, regroup, and preserve your capability for a future, more pressing geopolitical opportunity.” Whatever the final, confidential deal entails, it is certain that the strategic interests of Moscow and Beijing played a crucial role in silencing the guns and dictating this pause.

By halting the attacks, the Houthis achieve several goals:

Despite an entire coalition led by the most powerful state to date waging a relentless campaign, it could not defeat the Houthis. So they were the clear victors of the game, where they remained the underdog and earned sympathy from East to West.

Draining the Opponent’s Budget: They force the international coalition (Operation Prosperity Guardian) to remain deployed and on high alert, costing the U.S. and its allies billions.

Strategic Ambiguity: The silence creates uncertainty about their next move, keeping the global shipping industry anxious.

Domestic Focus: They can now divert resources and attention back to internal governance and consolidating their territorial control in Yemen.

Conclusion: The Sovereign Strategy of Silence

The cessation of Houthi attacks is not a definitive end to the crisis, but a strategic pause born of necessity and directed by their principal ally, Iran or due to multifaceted factors. This silence is not a sign of defeat nor a retreat; it is the strategic breath of a determined non-state actor. They retain the capability and the will to resume attacks instantly. The pause is a reset button, allowing them to rearm, reorganize, and wait for the next geopolitical trigger, making their potential return to the Red Sea a terrifying prospect for global commerce.