The report states that the United Kingdom and the United States will issue an ultimatum to the Houthi forces in Yemen, planning to launch maritime and aerial strikes. What impact will this have on the situation in the Red Sea region?

(Observer Network) On December 31, 2023, the merchant ship “Maersk Hangzhou” was attacked by Houthi militants in the Red Sea region. In response to a distress signal from the merchant ship, the U.S. Navy sank three Houthi militant boats, resulting in the death or disappearance of 10 Houthi militants. The Red Sea situation is facing the risk of further escalation. According to a report from The Times (UK) on December 31, the British military is planning to launch missile strikes on Houthi militant targets at sea or within Yemen in coordination with the United States. A British government source revealed that it is expected that the UK and the United States will issue an “unprecedented ultimatum,” warning the Houthi militants to stop attacking merchant ships, or else Western military forces will take action. The report states that the UK and the United States are trying to persuade other European countries to cooperate in order to prevent Houthi militant attacks, and another European country may also participate in the operation. These countries are concerned that continued disruptions to one of the world’s most important maritime trade routes could have “catastrophic consequences” for the global economy. The source said that the UK and the United States will issue a “final ultimatum” to the Houthi militants, warning them to stop attacking merchant ships in the Red Sea, or else Western countries may make a “limited but significant response.” According to the source, the UK and the United States plan to launch missile strikes on Houthi militant targets at sea or within Yemen, with the British Navy’s Type 45 destroyer “Diamond” and air force aircraft possibly participating in this joint operation. The UK had previously announced earlier in December that the “Diamond” destroyer had used the “Sea Viper” missile to shoot down an unmanned drone. Image: British Navy Type 45 destroyer “Diamond.” Source: UK Ministry of Defence. UK Media: UK and US to issue ultimatum to Houthi militants in Yemen, planning for sea and air strikes.

Asymmetric Naval Conflict

The US seems to be showcasing its military might with slipper troops! Unfortunately, it appears to disappoint its own standards once again.

To draw a comparison, the US military versus the Houthi rebels is like an elephant against ants, where the former is only subject to being bitten without any means of retaliation.

On December 26th, the Houthi rebels launched a large-scale attack on the US Navy.

In a single day, aircraft from the USS Eisenhower and the USS Laboon destroyer shot down 12 drones, 3 anti-ship missiles, and 2 cruise missiles belonging to the Houthi rebels.

Many people do not understand why the Houthi rebels dare to provoke the US military?

They have the confidence and the means to challenge the US military.

The contest between the Houthi rebels and the US military is actually a game of maritime control. Ultimately, it boils down to who has more formidable warships or aircraft.

By this logic, the Houthi rebels have no business playing naval games with the US, as they don’t even possess a legitimate warship.

However, the Red Sea has an average width of only 300 kilometers, particularly at its narrowest point, the Mandeb Strait, which is only 30 kilometers wide.

At this distance, the Houthi rebels can cover the Mandeb Strait with firepower from land.

Moreover, the Houthi rebels have two trump cards: anti-ship missiles and drones.

Interestingly, the Houthi’s anti-ship missiles have a notable connection with China.

In 1984, China publicly developed the Eagle Strike 8 anti-ship missile.

This series later evolved into various improved models, with the C802 becoming a star product for international markets.

Iran has a particular fondness for this type of Chinese export missile and has even produced a copy known as the Noor anti-ship missile, which became a key asset in blockading the Strait of Hormuz.

Naturally, Iranian-affiliated armed groups also acquired these missiles.

The advancement and maturity of anti-ship missile and drone technology have allowed many countries with weaker navies to challenge larger adversaries effectively.

In 2006, Hezbollah used a Noor-type anti-ship missile to hit an Israeli corvette; in 2016, Houthi rebels used the same type of missile to destroy a UAE transport ship.

With the addition of cheaper suicide anti-ship drones, attacking enemy naval targets has become even more convenient.

So, is the US military helpless against these barefoot troops' naval attacks?

Of course not.

Against these technologically unsophisticated Houthi anti-ship missiles and drones, the US military can easily intercept them by activating radar and launching anti-air missiles.

However, it is highly cost-ineffective!

The US Navy primarily uses Standard Missile-2 Block IV for defense on cruisers and destroyers, each costing up to 2.1 million dollars. The more capable Standard Missile-6 costs over 4.1 million dollars each.

The latest air defense missiles are even more expensive, prohibitively so for most countries.

For instance, the latest Standard 3 Block IIA missile, capable of intercepting intermediate-range ballistic missiles, costs the US Navy close to 20 million dollars each, with export prices to Japan reaching 33 million dollars.

In contrast, the Houthi’s high-end Noor anti-ship missile costs only a few hundred thousand dollars each, and the suicide drones cost only 2,000 dollars each, with slightly more advanced drones costing up to 30,000 dollars.

The Houthis could launch 1,000 drones for just 20 million dollars, while the US would need to spend over 2 billion dollars on intercepting missiles.

This significant cost disparity leaves the US Navy in a difficult position.

Of course, the US military could deter the Houthis by proactively striking targets on their home ground.

However, the Houthi economy is so underdeveloped that there are hardly any significant overseas supply lines or even legitimate military targets for the US Navy to strike, leaving the world’s most powerful military somewhat at a loss against the “slipper” troops of the Houthi rebels!

Dilemmas of U.S. Involvement in Middle East Conflicts

If the United States gets entangled in another protracted war of attrition in the Middle East, everyone knows that the real disintegration of American hegemony isn’t far off, even when facing adversaries like the Houthi rebels.

In the latest round of Israel-Palestine conflict, the Houthi rebels, along with Hamas, Jihad, and the Lebanese Hezbollah, stood as the frontline forces against Israel. The reasons behind the Houthi’s resilience are multifaceted.

Firstly, their boldness stems from significant backing.

It’s believed that the Houthi rebels receive substantial support from military powerhouses like Iran. Iran provides a wide array of advanced military equipment, funds, training, and intelligence, significantly enhancing the Houthi’s combat capabilities.

Once Iran’s counterweight against Saudi Arabia, the Houthi rebels quickly shifted their primary target to Israel following reconciliation between Saudi and Iran.

This suggests that the Houthi rebels are, to some extent, Iran’s “Wagner” in the Middle East, stepping in as Iran’s proxy in various military conflicts when Iran prefers not to intervene directly.

Secondly, the Houthi rebels possess formidable military strength.

Reports indicate that the Houthi rebels have close to 100,000 military personnel. They stood firm against Saudi Arabia and the UAE in past conflicts and have caused substantial trouble for Israel in the recent clash.

Given Yemen’s significant distance from Israel, approximately 1700 kilometers, the Houthi attacks have to rely on long-range drones, missiles, or ships.

Launching a plethora of drones or missiles with ranges up to 1700 kilometers significantly surpasses the capabilities expected from a regular “guerrilla” group. For context, drones used by Ukraine in the conflict with Russia typically have a range of about 500 kilometers, just enough to barely reach into Russian territory from the border.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the Houthi’s stand against Israel has some moral high ground.

With Arab nations reluctant to directly engage in the Israel-Palestine conflict and international bodies like the United Nations powerless against Israeli aggression, the Houthi’s attacks on Israeli military forces and their firm stance in the conflict have garnered significant support.

Even if Arab nations, due to various political considerations, do not publicly support the Houthis, tacit approval or even covert support for their military actions is highly plausible.

Lastly, the Houthis have recognized America’s reluctance to directly engage.

With the U.S. Congress bickering over mere billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine, the U.S. government is clearly not prepared, nor does it have the capacity, to open a new front in the Middle East.

Sending aircraft carriers to the Middle East to support Israel and advocating for Israel in the United Nations, holding out until the last moment, and then providing a certain level of military funding and weapons, is all that the U.S. seems willing to do for its key ally.

The U.S. clearly has no desire to send troops into Middle Eastern conflicts.

Recognizing this, the Houthi rebels have become increasingly bold, openly challenging the U.S. and Israel and targeting their vessels in the Red Sea.

Thus, the recent rhetoric from Western countries appears more as a deterrent. Effectively addressing the issue of Red Sea merchant ships being attacked is not something that can be easily resolved by sending a few warships or F-35s.

There’s a risk that the U.S. could fall into a position similar to Russia’s in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, being drained indefinitely by Middle Eastern countries through Houthi actions and possibly performing even worse than Russia, given Russia’s primary goal is to simply keep Ukraine from tilting fully to the West.

With the Houthi rebels honed by years of conflict, they have become one of the most elite military forces in the Middle East. If the U.S. doesn’t eradicate the Houthi threat thoroughly, the Red Sea will remain turbulent.

Doesn’t this situation somewhat resemble Israel’s predicament with Hamas?

President Biden’s unyielding support for Israel on the Israel-Palestine issue, alienating all Arab people and even the entire Islamic world, may well become one of the most absurd policies in U.S. history.

No matter how much face the United States has lost in front of its compatriots in the early stage, as long as it really comes down this time, we will be the most loyal friends.

Lighthouse, go for it! I will keep lighting candles for you!

Escalating Conflicts in the Middle East: Ramifications for the US

The United States is making a high-stakes move by taking direct action against the Houthi rebels.

The United Kingdom is cooperating actively. On the 31st, the UK Defense Secretary, Ben Sharp, stated that if the Houthi rebels continue to “threaten lives and trade,” the UK will be forced to take “necessary and appropriate action.”

However, the mighty British Empire has only dispatched one Type 45 missile destroyer, the “HMS Diamond,” and some aircraft to participate in this joint operation. This appears to be a half-hearted effort to support the United States.

The Houthi rebels claim to support Palestine and attack Israeli vessels in the Red Sea. This has deterred many Western nations from getting involved in the Middle East and joining the US escort fleet.

The US initially established a joint fleet to help Israel and contain the spread of conflict between Israel and Palestine. However, with allies unwilling to cooperate, there are few takers for engaging in a war against the Houthi rebels.

Even the UK’s involvement seems perfunctory, leaving the US feeling increasingly isolated.

From initially seeking to prevent the spread of conflict, the US is now actively expanding the war, driven by excessive confidence.

It can be said that the US’s escalation of the war will lead to unforeseen consequences:

  1. The US is becoming isolated from the world but remains unrepentant and determined to participate in the war, further escalating the conflict.
  2. Islamic nations, already deeply dissatisfied with the US, and countries advocating for international fairness and justice may impose sanctions on Israel and covertly assist Iran. Iran has already vowed retaliation for the recent killing of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander Qassem Musavi by Israel. This could lead to attacks against both Israel and the US by proxy, making the US a party to a proxy war in the Middle East.
  3. The US is getting involved in both the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the Israel-Palestine conflict, giving its strategic rival, China, significant room for maneuver. China can support Iran, escalate the conflict to tie down the US, or quietly organize joint sanctions against Israel by sympathetic southern nations, indirectly targeting the US.

These opportunities are precious, and the US, already standing on the opposite side of the world, can be further isolated by China’s strategic moves, gaining more support for its vision of peaceful coexistence from other nations.

Furthermore, the US and the UK are unlikely to engage in ground combat in Yemen, making it challenging to defeat the Houthi rebels. These rebels are known for their guerrilla warfare tactics and can easily hide in the mountains. The US’s experience in Afghanistan, where it fought for two decades without eradicating the Taliban, should serve as a stark reminder.

If the US resorts only to missile strikes and airstrikes against the Houthi rebels, it will have limited effectiveness and deplete its missile stockpile. Moreover, it could trigger more intense attacks by the rebels on Red Sea shipping lanes, potentially disrupting maritime trade.

The US’s attack on the Houthi rebels will not lead to a clear victory on the battlefield, and it risks further international backlash.

President Biden appears to have made a series of misguided decisions, increasing isolation while expanding the conflict. The consequences are likely to be far from what he expects.

The US’s overconfidence and ignorance of the world’s changing dynamics have led it to play with fire. The majority of nations no longer accept the use of force to resolve issues.

From the beginning of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the US has consistently flexed its military might, initially to deter Iran and other nations from getting involved, later blocking UN resolutions for ceasefires, and now actively expanding the war by targeting the Houthi rebels. The US may be flexing its muscles worldwide, but it’s doing so at a time when it is no longer the strongest player. Some Western media outlets claim that the US refuses to acknowledge its decline, while China refuses to acknowledge its rise, creating a surreal world.

Dear USA, please quickly demonstrate your power. There have been rumors all over the world about how formidable and mighty you are. Yet, you are using aircraft carriers to confront the Houthi armed forces in their ten-ton small boats. You truly seem invincible.

It’s likely that this time, the United States will ultimately launch some missiles, claiming to have targeted hundreds of Houthi objectives and achieved their operational goals. They won’t engage in ground warfare with the Houthi armed forces. On a side note, the situation in the Red Sea has been going on for over a month, and the United States still hasn’t resolved the Houthi armed conflict, which is embarrassing in itself.

US, UK, and French Naval Actions Against Houthi Forces

Twitter user Schizolntel compiled statistics based on public information regarding the interception of Houthi armed missiles, drones, and boats by the naval forces of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France (primarily the United States) as of December 31, 2023.

Here is a summary:

  • USS Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group (USA): Shot down 6 drones and sank 3 boats (sunk by MH-60R/S helicopters on the carrier; drones shot down by F/A-18E/F Hornets on the carrier).
  • USS Gravely (USA): Intercepted 3 missiles and 1 drone.
  • USS Hudner (USA): Shot down 5 drones.
  • USS Mason (USA): Intercepted 1 missile and 1 drone.
  • USS Laboon (USA): Intercepted 5 missiles and 10 drones.
  • USS Carney (USA): Intercepted 4 missiles and 33 drones.
  • HMS Diamond (UK): Shot down 1 drone.
  • FS Languedoc (France): Shot down 3 drones.

The US Navy’s MH-60R/S helicopters, equipped with Hellfire missiles, are proficient at sinking boats. US Navy destroyers equipped with Standard Missile interceptors.

In total, the naval forces of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France intercepted 13 missiles, shot down 60 drones, and sank 3 boats.

However, this is only a part of the Houthi armed forces' offensive: they have launched at least 18 missiles and 72 drones.

Clearly, relying solely on defense is insufficient to stop all drones and missiles. The “Maersk Hangzhou” was hit by a missile before the arrival of US Navy helicopters, fortunately without causing casualties.

As of December 31, 2023, in addition to the USS Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group and US Coast Guard patrol vessels, the region including the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and the Arabian Sea has naval vessels deployed by the UK, France, Spain, Japan, South Korea, and Egypt. The PLA Navy’s Urumqi destroyer (DDG-118), Linyi frigate (FF-547), and Dongping Lake comprehensive supply ship (960) are also present in the Gulf of Aden.

US and UK Strategies Against the Houthis

The United States Navy, with the Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group, is present in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. They have the option to launch F/A-18E/F Hornets from the carrier or directly launch Tomahawk missiles from escort destroyers to engage Houthi targets.

For the United Kingdom, the HMS Diamond destroyer in this region does not provide effective means for land attacks. However, the Royal Air Force can carry out sorties from an airbase in Cyprus in the Mediterranean Sea. Typhoon aircraft paired with Storm Shadow missiles would be an effective strike combination.

Why only maritime and aerial strikes? Why not a ground invasion? Why just a “limited but significant response”? Why not a full-scale war to completely eliminate the threat? Why not form a coalition?

Why is CVN-78 heading to the Eastern Mediterranean? Why only CVN-69 remains? Why is the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group also going to the Eastern Mediterranean? Aren’t the Houthi rebels in the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait? Is this planning to conduct maritime and aerial strikes across the entire Arabian Peninsula?

Soldiers of the heavens! When will you set foot on the hot land of Yemen?

The Dilemma of the Houthi Conflict

The “ultimatum” doesn’t work; the Houthi rebels have been clashing with Saudi Arabia for years, and they seem unfazed by the attacks. In fact, if they were afraid, would they dare to block the Red Sea? Yemen has a population of over 30 million, and the Houthi rebels have a force of 200,000 troops; this is not a mere “ragtag group.” Before making any decisive moves, the opposing side will surely assess the situation, and if they dare to act, they will have a countermove.

If the United States and the United Kingdom carry out missile attacks as reported, it would be a joke. A larger-scale “missiles for bullets” exchange will only drain their resources further, unless it involves a full-scale ground invasion. However, if they do go that route, Yemen, with no significant oil resources, will become a financial burden for the United States that they can’t easily get rid of.

After just escaping from Afghanistan, is the United States willing to dive headfirst into Yemen? Are the Taliban’s AK-47s less intimidating than the Houthi’s slippers?

Initially, the United Kingdom was not prominently involved in this recent series of events, but when the United States struggled to respond effectively, the UK suddenly jumped in with airstrikes. It seems like they couldn’t hold in their intentions. If the United States decides to take military action seriously, one must ask: should they target the Houthi missiles, which even struggled to hit Israel, or the numerous US military bases right in their neighborhood?

On the surface, the UK is rallying against the Houthi rebels, but in reality, they’re whispering in the ears of the United States, “Tiger, attack! Tiger, attack!”

In recent years, the UK’s economy has been in dire straits, seeking desperate solutions. If the United States faces misfortune, better days may come for the UK.

… At least it’s not the UK itself facing adversity.

Escalation in the Red Sea: Iran’s Involvement

A new development unfolds as Iran’s main naval vessel, the “Erbil,” makes an appearance in the Red Sea. This undoubtedly adds a fresh layer of uncertainty to the already tense situation in the Red Sea, increasing the likelihood of a direct confrontation with the navies of the United States and the United Kingdom.

The presence of Iranian warships in the Red Sea serves as a stern response to the undisclosed military actions being plotted by the United States and the United Kingdom. It also comes as a show of support for the Houthi rebels, following the sinking of three Houthi naval vessels.

In addition to the United States and the United Kingdom, Germany is possibly joining the fray. A joint statement is expected to be issued within the next few hours, signaling their final preparations for a large-scale military operation against the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

This impending attack is set to involve the launch of hundreds of missiles and airstrikes against pre-designated targets in western Yemen and the Red Sea.

Just like dipping into boiling water, although one may not be scalded to death, the pain is undeniable. If the United States and the United Kingdom dare to jump in, the chances of coming out unscathed are close to zero.

Barefoot is not afraid of wearing shoes.

Don’t Talk So Much Nonsense, Wang, Get Down to Business

Reports suggest that the UK and the US are trying to persuade other European countries to cooperate, and there may be another European country joining the action… Sources claim that if the Houthi rebels refuse to stop their attacks, Western countries may make a “limited but significant response”…

It’s “convincing other countries, maybe another European country joining.”

It’s also “once the Houthis stop their attacks, the West will respond significantly.”

Even the threatening words are spoken so hesitantly.

The coalition of ten countries can’t even get their act together.

I think the UK and the US should stop pretending this time.

Once the US dares to get involved personally,

In the short term, they can indeed severely damage the Houthi militia,

But the UK and the US homeland may suffer attacks on the scale of 9/11.

Two months ago, I posted a picture. Can I still use it…

The Houthi militants are quite formidable.

It is safe to assume that they are taken seriously by both the former world superpower, the British Empire where the sun never sets, and the current world superpower, the United States. Their strength and status seem to be on par with nations like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, a certain Eastern powerhouse, the graveyard of empires, Afghanistan, and the world’s third military powerhouse, Vietnam, Iraq, among others.

The Changing Dynamics of Global Geopolitics

Have you ever wondered why the Middle East, a region far from the shores of the United States, used to be a playground for American interests? The fundamental reason was that there were no challengers strong enough to pry open America’s grip on the region.

But what happens when a challenger not only can loosen that grip but can also strike back effectively? In such a scenario, the region becomes a potential vulnerability for the United States.

Once the balance of power shifts, the involved nations can exert pressure when they see fit. In 2014:

  • March 26: China and Brazil signed a currency swap agreement.
  • March 27: BRICS nations discussed creating a foreign exchange reserve pool to address financial crises.
  • March 27: North Korea called for a holy war of retaliation.
  • March 29: North Korean missile units were put on alert.
  • March 30: North Korea declared a state of war with South Korea.
  • April 1: North Korea claimed that U.S. bases in Japan were within its firing range.
  • April 1: North Korean experts boasted that attacking the U.S. would be a piece of cake.
  • April 2: North Korea restarted its previously closed nuclear reactor.
  • April 4: North Korean military announced that its combat plan had received final approval, and the U.S. set up missile defense systems in Guam.
  • April 5: North Korea urged foreign embassy staff to evacuate. Cuba called for restraint in North Korea’s actions, and the Australian Prime Minister hoped China would pressure North Korea to stay calm.
  • April 6: South Korea deployed Aegis destroyers to counter North Korean missiles.

South Korea was concerned that a U.S.-South Korea meeting scheduled for April 16 could provoke North Korea, so the meeting was postponed. The U.S. expressed readiness to deploy Global Hawk reconnaissance aircraft in Japan.

China finally spoke up, opposing any disturbance in the region. On April 7, the U.S. postponed its planned intercontinental missile test.

On April 8, China and Australia signed a direct currency exchange agreement.

On April 9, North Korea announced the suspension of operations at the Kaesong Industrial Complex and recommended that foreigners in South Korea evacuate.

Initially, it may have seemed strange that the Australian Prime Minister was acting oddly. However, when you consider the escalating situation on the Korean Peninsula, it becomes clear. North Korea was flexing its muscles and challenging South Korea. South Korea needed the protection of its U.S. ally, but North Korea claimed it could easily handle the U.S. itself, prompting the U.S. to deploy missile defense systems in Guam.

Australia, situated thousands of miles away from the Korean Peninsula, misunderstood the situation initially. But as the U.S. moved its defenses to Guam, Australia realized that it would be next in line if tensions escalated further. While negotiating with Beijing, Australia asked China to exert pressure on North Korea to maintain peace.

China’s response was calm, and Australia continued to watch as the U.S. deployed Global Hawks in Japan. Finally, China took a stand and told the U.S. not to stir up trouble in the region. The U.S. backed down from its imminent missile test.

The next day, the China-Australia agreement was signed. Australians are not naive; they know that the U.S. is struggling to find a solution in East Asia, and the situation in Syria, with Putin’s Black Sea fleet nearby, presents another challenge. When the U.S. is drowning in debt and needs to stabilize the Euro, the European Union is its target. So, Australia signed a currency swap agreement with China to hold more stable reserves, as their treasury was full of depreciating euros and dollars.

In recent days, tensions have risen in the Middle East, with Hamas and Israel clashing, and merchant ships facing attacks by Houthi militants in the Red Sea. Meanwhile, Ukraine has initiated hostilities against Russia, and North Korea has declared that its relationship with South Korea is no longer one of kinship but complete hostility.

All these situations involve core U.S. interests, and mobilizing forces across thousands of miles is a logistical nightmare for any nation. The question arises: which conflict will the U.S. prioritize, and how many can it handle simultaneously without jeopardizing its interests?

In essence, by spreading itself too thin across numerous core interests, the U.S. may end up compromising its own position. The shifting dynamics in these hotspots force the U.S. to make tough decisions and weigh the costs carefully.

Shaping the Best-Case Scenarios

For us, the ideal scenario would be the United States deploying ground forces in Ukraine.

The next best scenario would be the United States deploying ground forces in Yemen.

Of course, in such a situation, Putin would likely react with great emotion.

For the United States, it is unimaginable to deploy ground forces in Yemen. Deploying naval and aerial forces is a more viable option, allowing for offensive and defensive capabilities without putting themselves in a strategic quagmire. This represents the utmost limit of action for the United States.

For China and Russia, there is some disappointment in this outcome.

Nevertheless, there is no need to worry; time and opportunities are on our side. It’s hard to believe that there won’t be more chances to test the strategic resolve of the United States. We can continue to seek and create such opportunities.

For example, what if we were to detonate an American embassy in a certain Middle Eastern country?

Bold, Israel aside, why should you, England, be ahead of the United States? Are you just trying to join in on the fun with England and the United States?

It’s really impressive, the ancestral craftsmanship, wherever England and the United States go, there are feathers scattered all around.

Yemen Crisis: England and the United States Bluff in the Face of Houthi Rebels

England: My Royal Navy escorts the Red Sea, and you Houthi youngsters, dare you harm me? Houthi: Stop your empty words. Are those Royal Navy ships of yours a force to be reckoned with?

England, dejectedly turns towards the United States, suddenly wide-eyed: Who dares to provoke us?

To get to the point, Yemen boasts a force of several hundred thousand troops, with over a decade of experience in fighting against the Saleh government and engaging in large-scale ground battles with Saudi Arabia, along with the elite American equipment supplied by the latter. From any perspective, it is much more formidable than the Taliban of the past.

It’s not a question of doubting the absolute power of the United States, but even if it can win, it will shed more blood in the Middle East. It is already in a precarious position in various geopolitical arenas, and the inevitable result of massive losses will be the decline of its hegemony, not to mention the potential strong support from mysterious powers to Yemen.

So, the so-called ultimatum from England and the United States is just a show, a political stunt under the influence of election politics. However, the biggest fear is that the enemy sees through their bluff. If Yemen doesn’t take their bait and challenges them to come and fight, they will end up losing in a fit of impotent rage.

The U.S. has conducted more strikes against the Afghan Taliban, leading to the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan.

Spending tens of millions of dollars on missiles to destroy tents worth just a few dollars is something even the wealthiest empire cannot afford.

I, Emperor Xizong Wu, the Divine Martial Sage, have ascended to the throne of the Great Unity, aligning with the will of heaven and the people, following the virtuous path of Yao and Shun. I govern the United States to bring order to all nations. Isn’t this in accordance with the will of heaven and the aspirations of the people? As the ancients said: Those who follow the will of heaven prosper, while those who oppose it perish. Now, with a million soldiers clad in armor and a thousand capable generals, how can the flicker of the Huns and the decayed grass compare to the brilliant moon of the United States in the heart of heaven? If the Hun leaders lay down their weapons and armor and come in peace, they will not lose their noble titles. The country will be safe, and the people will be happy. How beautiful would that be? But if they persist in their wicked ways, defying imperial decrees, when the heavenly army arrives, there will be no escape.

Heaven does not take what is not given, and one reaps what one sows. America, prepare for battle! I have faith in you!