The U.S. military has launched at least 680 strikes against the Houthi terrorist group in Yemen through March and April, according to the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, hassling the group’s activities with what U.S. Central Command calls “24/7” coverage. The heavy bombardment campaign against Iran’s most powerful terrorist proxy continues as American envoys engage Iran in intensive talks over the fate of their nuclear weapons program.

Last June, the Associated Press documented “the most intense running sea battle the Navy has faced since World War II,” as American ships in the Red Sea fended off “near-daily” attacks from the Houthis. The Houthis engaged American, British, and other vessels — with the notable exception of Chinese ships — out of solidarity with Hamas and other terrorist groups at war with Israel.

After re-assuming office in January, President Trump replaced the passive policy of his predecessor with a plan to punish the pernicious pirates. Instead of ordering the Navy to sit there like ducks, Trump authorized the U.S. military to do what they do best — take the fight to the enemy with overwhelming force.

The bombing runs have not been without losses. The Houthis — well-equipped with the latest Iranian technology — have shot down six U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drones, which cost about $30 million each.

Yet the American public overwhelmingly supports Trump’s decision. In a Harvard-Harris poll published on April 4, 71% of Americans supported “President Trump’s decision to strike the Houthis and restore maritime security,” including 86% of Republicans, 68% of Independents, and even 58% of Democrats.

(This result is exactly the opposite of what Vice President J.D. Vance predicted in the leaked Signal chat discussing the first Houthi strikes. At the time, Vance wrote, “There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary.”)

Of course, it will take more than aerial strikes to defeat the Houthis, who control multiple ports and even Sana’a, the capital of Yemen. From 2015 to 2022, the Houthis sustained 25,000 air raids, according to the Yemen Data Project, but those attacks failed to dislodge them.

Yet there is reason to believe that the current American bombing campaign will yield greater success, even without placing U.S. boots on the ground. The legitimate government of Yemen — which was driven out of the capital in 2014 — has reportedly amassed nearly 80,000 troops for a ground assault against the Houthis. Such a force would “represent a majority of all non-Houthi forces in Yemen,” said The Jerusalem Post, and “would constitute the largest offensive of the civil war.”

The Houthis appear to be taking the Yemeni government’s force seriously enough that they are deploying landmines and other defensive measures in response.

While the U.S. engages militarily with Iran’s proxy on the southern tip of the Arabian peninsula, it is simultaneously engaging Iranian representatives diplomatically on the eastern tip. American and Iranian officials are scheduled to meet in Oman on Saturday for a third round of talks, continuing America’s staccato overtures to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Theoretically, the ongoing degradation of Iran’s proxy forces — not to mention America’s military buildup in the Indian Ocean, and the reimposition of stifling sanctions — should provide additional pressure on Iran to reach a deal and reach it quickly.

Yet it might be possible for the U.S. to approach Iran from too many angles, sending conflicting signals that prevent any one strategy from working as intended.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is worried about just such a possibility, Israeli media reports, fretting that the U.S. negotiations, led by special envoy Steve Witkoff are “very, very advanced,” and that the U.S. has not shared enough information with Israel on key issues.

The concern may stem less from mistrust of President Trump than from mistrust of envoy Witkoff. After learning that Trump planned to engage Iran in diplomacy, Netanyahu released a statement on April 8 stating that he and Trump “agree that Iran will not have nuclear weapons. This can be done by agreement, but only if the agreement is a Libya-style agreement,” which means Iran would “go in, blow up the facilities, dismantle all the equipment, under American supervision with American execution.”

Yet Witkoff did not seem to be on the same page. After the first round of talks, he indicated that Washington would accept a cap on enrichment and not require Iran to dismantle its nuclear facilities. The next day, he corrected himself and said that any agreement would require Iran to “stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.”

In a Tuesday phone conversation, Trump tried to assuage Netanyahu’s concerns, confirming his intention that any deal issuing from these negotiations would “leave no trace” of Iran’s nuclear program. Israeli media reported that this eased Israel’s concerns “a little,” but that Israel was still worried about the direction of the negotiations.

Meanwhile, Iran is racing to fortify its buried nuclear facilities, according to satellite imagery obtained by the U.S. Trump set a 60-day deadline (which is nearly halfway over) for the negotiations with Iran, after which all options are on the table.

When asked whether he would get “dragged in” to war with Iran “unwillingly” by Netanyahu, Trump attacked the very premise of the question. “No, I may go in very willingly if we can’t get a deal. If we don’t make a deal, I’ll be leading the pack,” he said.

What would that look like? And what sort of deal can the U.S. make? If Trump’s timeline is correct, the world will know in a few short weeks.