Iran has reportedly said it will enlist the help of a terrorist group to further constrain global shipping if the U.S. military attacks Iranian energy infrastructure.
Iran has instructed Yemen’s Houthi rebels to prepare to close the Bab el-Mandeb Strait if the United States attacks Iranian power infrastructure, Reuters reported, citing Iranian and regional sources familiar with the communications. The report came as the U.S. military escalated its operations with repeated airstrikes on critical infrastructure, including highways, bridges and energy sites, according to the Associated Press (AP) and Reuters.
The Islamic Republic’s leadership already sent the request to the Yemeni Houthis, Reuters reported, citing two senior Iranian sources and a regional source who spoke anonymously.
President Donald Trump threatened to attack Iranian energy infrastructure, according to an interview with Fox News’s Trey Yingst. It remains unclear if this is the reason the Iranians issued the request to the Houthis.
“I’ll save the energy targets for last, but ultimately we’ll hit energy targets,” Trump said.
The Pentagon referred the Daily Caller News Foundation to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), who, along with the White House, did not immediately reply to a DCNF request for comment.
“U.S. forces ended the seventh consecutive night of strikes against Iran on July 17 at 9:30 p.m. ET,” the military said in a Friday press release. “U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) hit surveillance sites, military logistics infrastructure, underground weapons storage, and maritime capabilities. U.S. forces employed fighter aircraft, aerial drones, and warships in addition to other assets.”
This is not the first time the Houthis have threatened shipping in the Red Sea during the Iran War. The Houthis threatened to attack any Israeli shipping moving through the Red Sea in a June 8 press release.
“We declare a complete and total ban on Israeli maritime navigation in the Red Sea, and we consider all enemy movements to be legitimate military targets for our Armed Forces from the moment this statement is issued,” the Yemen Press Agency said in the release.
The threat to shipping in the Red Sea was made shortly after the Yemeni Armed Forces launched a ballistic missile directly at Israel on June 8, according to Israel National News. The missile was intercepted by air defenses, according to the outlet.
The aggression of the Yemeni Armed Forces has led to a significant downturn in shipping companies’ willingness to traverse the Red Sea, Hapag-Lloyd spokesperson Nils Haupt previously told the DCNF.
“We haven’t passed the Red Sea since [the] end of 2023, when one of our vessels was attacked – and we have no plans to return anytime soon,” Haupt said. “Most of [the] shipping lines still avoid [the] Red Sea and go via [the] Cape of Good Hope.”
Haupt was referencing an attack on the Al Jasrah, one of 67 such incidents in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden from Nov. 19, 2023, to Sept. 2, 2024, according to theInternational Maritime Organization.
The average monthly crossing volume of shipping vessels through the strait was 1,034 in March 2026; it was over 2,000 in September 2023, according to Lloyd’s List Intelligence.
A wave of airstrikes against Iran on Friday included attacks on energy sites, bridges, shipping facilities and airports, according to AP and Reuters. The expansion of attacks to such infrastructure has raised questions among legal experts about whether the campaign complies with the widely-accepted norms and laws of armed conflict.
“There’s a pretty common fallacy that if something is capable of having a military function as well as a civilian function, that that makes it a legitimate target,” Gabor Rona, a professor of practice at Cardozo Law School, previously told the DCNF. “That’s not the test … but rather, is it actually being used in a way that effectively supports military operations?”
“If an attack on even something that is being used for military purposes creates civilian harm that is clearly in excess, or is anticipated to create civilian harm clearly, in excess to any military value gained, that too makes the attack a violation of the laws of armed conflict of the Geneva Conventions,” Rona continued. “There is still an obligation on the part of the attacking party to take feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm.”
Not all legal experts, however, have expressed concern about the legitimacy of the targets.
“I still remain confident in the integrity of the operational level decision makers that these targets were vetted and fall within the category of military objective, and that we’ve taken feasible precautions,” Texas Tech University School of Law George R. Killam Jr. Director of the Center for Military Law and Policy, Geoffrey Corn, previously told the DCNF. “The problem is the bombast and the rhetoric that the president continues to engage in, and the suggestion repeated many times that this may be a mechanism or a method of punishing the Iranian regime, and that’s not a definite military advantage.”
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org
