Video shows latest US airstrikes against Iranian-backed targets in Yemen|News Update| News|Cnn

 Video shows latest US airstrikes against Iranian-backed targets in Yemen|News Update| CNN |Breaking news|News

Want to take you back to the new video we're getting from the Middle East. The Iran-backed Houthi rebels are vowing to retaliate after a series of strikes by a US led coalition there. U.S. officials say they hit at least 30 targets, including weapons used by the Houthis to attack commercial ships in the Red Sea. Now, this follows retaliatory airstrikes by the U.S. in Iraq and Syria over the deaths of three U.S. troops in Jordan. White House national Security adviser Jake Sullivan tells CNN there will be further action. So here now to discuss this is CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria. He's the host of Fareed Zakaria GPS. Fareed, good to see you. Now, the Houthis say they will meet escalation, even with escalation escalation. But just moments ago, President Biden told reporters the strikes against these militant groups are working. So what is the reality of this complex situation here? Well, what the administration is trying to do is to thread a difficult needle, which is it has to respond to strikes that kill American servicemen.

 It has to show that it is, you know, not going to tolerate those, going to respond to it and make the attackers pay a price. That all makes sense. On the other hand, the administration for the last hundred days has been trying to make sure that the war in the Middle East does not spread. And that means making sure that it doesn't turn into an escalation cycle that might join other militias, that might be drawing the Iranian government in some way or Hezbollah. And so that's the the the delicate balance. And if you listen carefully to the president and Jake Sullivan and administration officials, what they've been saying is two things. One, we intend to respond and we intend to respond forcefully. And second, the president does not want to widen the war, and they have taken certain actions to signal what they're doing so that it doesn't come as a surprise. They've taken they've drawn some lines and out of attacking inside Iran, for example. So the question is, will everybody play along with what is meant to be this kind of somewhat limited and carefully signaled strike over the Houthies, decide this is their moment in the sun and they get they get a chance to escalate themselves? You know, the nature of escalation is it's it's not only your decisions that matter here, but it's the other side's decisions. Yeah. And, you know, along those lines, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, he's described the U.S. National Security in freefall, to use his words. But he and other lawmakers in the U.S., they have been calling for a more forceful response by the U.S. in the Middle East, including striking Iran. And I know you touched on it a little bit, but but how how dangerous would that move be for one, when the U.S. and Iran are clearly both trying to avoid another war, but just along those lines of thinking, what would a more forceful response look like before getting, of course, to an actual direct strike on Iran? Yeah, what Lindsey Graham is proposing and, you know, frankly has been proposing off and on for years now is something much more direct on Iran. 

It's important to understand how provocative this would be because this would be an attack or an invasion, if you will, of Iran. Iran has not attacked the United States. These these this drone did not come from Iran. It came from a militia. Militia that's based in Iraq and Syria. And so it would be, in that sense, a escalation by the United States, in a sense unprovoked. If you think about the origin of the missile, and part of the problem here is that you're dealing with these militias and it's very unclear how you deter them. They live for this kind of battle. The Houthis, for example, endured ten years of Saudi aerial bombardment, much more substantial than anything the United States is doing, much more indiscriminate than anything the United States did. And it didn't stop them because, in a way, this is what they're searching for. This is the bait. What they want is the United States to get drawn into a conflict. They become the heroic defenders of the Palestinian cause, the, you know, heroic, anti-imperialist. Remember, the United States is deeply unpopular in the region right now because of the Israeli military action in Gaza. So this all plays directly into what they're looking for. What I'm hoping the administration, the administration has shown it can counterpunch. That's great. You know, we have the largest military in the world. We're going after a bunch of bandits in the desert. What is it? What would be more interesting to see and more difficult to achieve is can they politically move to diffuse the situation? Can they effectively get a cease-fire? Can they? You know, the only time these militias stopped attacking was when there was an eight-day cease fire between Israel and Hamas. So there is even in terms of the war not spreading an advantage to seeing if you can politically de-escalate rather than showing that you can militarily escalate. I mean, we spent $800 billion a year on this on our on the Pentagon, but we know we can escalate. The wisdom comes in finding a path where we can politically diffuse the problem. Yeah. Yeah. Now, look, U.S. officials have told CNN they believe Iranian leaders are nervous about some of the aggressive actions its proxy groups are taking, especially when they threaten the economic interests of Iran's key allies, China, and India. Does Iran have realistically control over any of these groups, and leverage to potentially get them from their end to slow down?