By Farhad Ibragimov – lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University, expert and lecturer at the Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences and Mass Communications, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
By Farhad Ibragimov – lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University, expert and lecturer at the Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences and Mass Communications, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
The Houthis continue to strike Saudi Arabia despite Riyadh’s threats of a forceful response and promises to enlist outside partners to defend the kingdom.
By targeting airports and oil infrastructure, Ansar Allah is seeking to raise the cost of Saudi involvement in Yemen’s conflict and force the kingdom’s leadership to reconsider the terms of a settlement.
The latest wave of Houthi attacks has targeted facilities of particular importance to Saudi Arabia. On the evening of October 13, a strike hit Saudi Aramco’s headquarters in Dhahran, home to the company’s key management operations. The Saudi Energy Ministry reported a fire, though miraculously no one was killed.
Ansar Allah also claimed strikes on an oil refinery in Riyadh and King Khalid International Airport. The choice of targets suggests the Houthis want to put virtually all of the kingdom’s oil revenue at risk and disrupt its international air connections.
These targets also suggest that the movement is trying to influence Saudi leaders’ decisions directly. Oil infrastructure generates government revenue, airports connect the country to the outside world, and confidence in the kingdom depends on the security of both. Even limited damage can therefore produce an impact far greater than the cost of the weapons used.
The Houthis have their own history of confrontation with Saudi Arabia. The movement emerged in northern Yemen, fought a series of wars against the central government between 2004 and 2010, and seized the capital, Sanaa, in 2014. Its rise was rooted in Yemen’s political system, local conflicts, and the collapse of state institutions. Iranian support strengthened an already established force with its own social base and political objectives.
The Saudi intervention in 2015 cemented Riyadh’s position as the movement’s principal foreign adversary. For the kingdom, the aim was to prevent a hostile force from consolidating power along its southern border and to support Yemen’s internationally recognized government. For the Houthi leadership, the war became both a threat to its survival and a rallying cause. Invoking foreign aggression allowed the movement to portray its struggle for domestic supremacy as a defense of national sovereignty.
That logic remains relevant to the current escalation. Saudi support for an offensive by Yemeni government forces threatens the Houthis’ territorial gains and bargaining position. Striking deep inside the kingdom allows them to raise the price of that support. Their apparent calculation is to make continued Saudi involvement in the war carry a recurring cost on Saudi soil.
The movement’s demands are concrete: an end to strikes, limits on assistance to its Yemeni adversaries, the lifting of transportation and trade restrictions, and agreements on revenues and payments. These issues were under discussion long before the latest escalation. The framework for a roadmap presented by the UN in December 2023 included a nationwide ceasefire, payment of public-sector salaries, the resumption of oil exports, and an easing of restrictions on Sanaa airport and the port of Hodeidah.
By increasing Riyadh’s costs, Ansar Allah hopes to extract concessions and retain control of the territory it has seized. A ceasefire on those terms, however, would consolidate the movement’s position without resolving how power should be shared in Yemen.
Attacks on Saudi Arabia also serve Ansar Allah’s domestic political interests. The movement uses its ability to strike deep inside the kingdom to bolster its standing among supporters. Confrontation with Riyadh also allows the Houthis to cast themselves as Yemen’s defenders against foreign intervention and use that claim to justify their bid for power.
Iranian military and technological assistance has undoubtedly expanded Houthi capabilities considerably. But the relationship with Tehran does not erase Ansar Allah’s own interests in Yemen’s power struggle or its confrontation with Saudi Arabia. Reducing the movement’s actions to the execution of Iranian orders fails to explain either the conflict’s local roots or the Houthi leadership’s objectives.
A more accurate description would be a partnership with unequal resources in which the Yemeni side retains substantial autonomy. Weakening Saudi Arabia may serve both partners’ interests, but their preferred terms for ending the war may differ. Ansar Allah must consider conditions on Yemen’s battlefields and the survival of its own rule. Agreements between Iran and outside powers therefore do not guarantee an automatic halt to Houthi operations.
The development of domestic missile production and an expanding network for procuring components make it harder for Riyadh to bring Houthi attacks to an end. If the movement can replenish its arsenal from several sources, restricting Iranian supplies will have only a partial effect. An agreement with Tehran alone would therefore be insufficient to secure Saudi facilities. Much will depend on whether the Houthis themselves believe continued strikes serve their interests.
Nor do the Houthis need to match Saudi Arabia in the quantity or quality of their weapons. They can choose their targets and pause between attacks, while the kingdom must continuously defend airports, oil facilities, and cities across a vast territory. Even a single hit can disrupt a facility’s operations, trigger flight cancellations, or bring business activity to a halt. Purchases of American air defense systems reduce that threat but do not eliminate it. Riyadh’s problem is that military superiority has yet to deprive its adversary of the ability to inflict economically painful blows. That is precisely the capability the Houthis are trying to turn into negotiating leverage.
Saudi military spending exceeds $82 billion per year, yet the kingdom still struggles to protect its infrastructure from Houthi attacks. This exposes the gap between the cost of the weapons it has purchased and their effectiveness in this particular war. Advanced fighter jets and missile defense systems give Riyadh a considerable advantage, but detecting small drones and low-flying cruise missiles requires extensive radar coverage and rapid information sharing between units. Without those capabilities, expensive equipment cannot reliably detect and engage targets in time.
In a prolonged confrontation, the disparity in weapons costs also becomes significant. According to cited estimates, a Patriot interceptor costs more than $3 million, while some Houthi drones cost just $15,000–25,000. Defenders have to use such interceptors against cheap aircraft to protect far more valuable assets. But sustained defensive operations deplete stocks that cannot be replenished quickly, particularly amid strong global demand for air defense systems. This gives the Houthis an opportunity to wear down the kingdom’s defenses even when most of the aircraft they launch fail to reach their targets.
Technical difficulties are compounded by the structure of the Saudi armed forces. The separation of the regular military and the National Guard has historically served, in part, to protect the monarchy against a coup. But separate chains of command and highly centralized decision-making can hinder coordination and limit commanders’ initiative. Another weapons purchase, then, will not solve the problem on its own. Even additional detection and interception systems will deliver limited results if information arrives late and coordinating a response takes too long.
The Houthis can reasonably expect these shortcomings to take time to address, leaving them able to continue inflicting painful blows in the meantime. Domestic production and broader supply networks help sustain that campaign. The movement does not need to destroy major industrial facilities or shut down air travel altogether; a recurring threat is enough to make airlines reconsider routes, investors postpone decisions, and Saudi leaders spend more on protecting infrastructure.
Statements by Türkiye and Pakistan expressing their readiness to defend Saudi Arabia do not yet provide grounds to expect either country to enter the war fully, much less fight the Houthis inside Yemen. At an October 5 meeting, the parties to the Mecca Agreement announced that they would provide forces and equipment for the kingdom’s defense. The political weight of those promises, however, will depend on whether the allies can actually reduce the number of attacks and the damage they cause. As long as the strikes continue, Houthi leaders may view such declarations as rhetoric unlikely to be followed by a dangerous expansion of the war.
Ankara’s position reinforces that calculation. Turkish Foreign Affairs Minister Hakan Fidan outlined possible assistance with air defense, electronic warfare, and technical support, while explicitly ruling out Turkish troops taking part in offensive operations on foreign soil. Türkiye has thus set clear limits on its role from the outset.
Pakistan also has reasons to avoid direct intervention. Joining the war in Yemen would mean additional military spending and the risk of worsening relations with neighboring Iran. It would therefore be premature to expect Islamabad to take on the task of defeating the Houthis on Riyadh’s behalf. Its commitments to the kingdom leave room for a role limited to defending specific facilities and providing military assistance.
A similar distinction applies to the American position. Intelligence sharing and targeting assistance support Saudi operations, but they do not mean Washington is willing to stop the attacks at any cost. The Houthis appear to be counting on precisely these limits to outside involvement. Their bet is that the kingdom’s allies will help it defend itself but will be reluctant to become embroiled in a prolonged war to achieve Saudi objectives in Yemen.
Until that support produces a substantial reduction in attacks, threats to bring in allies may carry little weight with Ansar Allah.
The Houthis are seeking to demonstrate that continued Saudi intervention will bring losses that neither a vast defense budget nor foreign partners can prevent. If that pressure prompts Riyadh to scale back assistance to their adversaries or accept settlement terms favorable to them, the movement will have an opportunity to translate its battlefield gains into lasting political advantages.
Such an outcome would also benefit Iran by weakening Saudi Arabia’s position. Its most immediate consequence, however, would be to strengthen Ansar Allah itself in the struggle for power in Yemen.
© Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “TV-Novosti”, 2005–2026. All rights reserved.
This website uses cookies. Read RT Privacy policy to find out more.