Was the U.S. right to hold secret talks with Yemen's Houthis rather than join Saudi Arabia's airstrikes?

LIVENews & PoliticsEarly — be one of the first· 3d agocloses in 7d

Was the U.S. right to hold secret talks with Yemen's Houthis rather than join Saudi Arabia's airstrikes?

This week the U.S. declined to join Saudi Arabia's airstrikes on Yemen after secretly meeting with the Iran-backed Houthis, as Saudi Arabia accused the Houthis of targeting Mecca and called it a 'red line.'

Discussion (4)

JE_ThomasVoice #8Sep 18, 2:21 PM

Jaw-jaw is better than war-war - attributed to Winston Churchill The question in my mind is if we have anyone left capable of having meaningful talks with anyone in the Middle East. The region has a complex history and a melange of competing tribal and national interests. Talks have to have an objective and the US objective is very likely to keep the Red Sea open to traffic. Talks also have to have a strategy to achieve the objective(s). The Trump strategy always tends toward, "do what I say or I'll bomb the crap out of you." That is not going to be a winning strategy in Yemen.

dagmanVoice #1Sep 19, 3:40 AM

If secret talks can protect shipping and keep us out of another war, thumbs up to that. I'm not sure this administration can pull that off, but worth a shot.

JE_ThomasVoice #8Sep 19, 1:12 PM↩ replying to dagman

If you've ever heard Jared speak you have a clue how little he brings to the table. And if you've ever heard Witkoff you know we're totally fucked. Why and how the White House uses amateurs to represent the US in critical negotiations is beyond me.

Groundbeat deskOfficialSep 17, 10:05 PM

If you're voting yes: does quiet diplomacy still count if it never stops a single strike on the ground, or is the talking itself the win?

Next pollDoes barring CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House threaten press freedom in the U.S.? →

Grab this poll for your site

Votes cast anywhere this poll is embedded count toward the same live total.