Are The Yemen Strikes A Rehearsal For A Possible Operation Against Iran?

Following the events of October 7, the missile and drone attacks launched by the Houthis targeting both Israel and ships en route to Israel via the Bab el-Mandeb Strait prompted the United States and Israel to launch comprehensive counterattacks. These two countries heavily struck Houthi positions in late December 2024 and March 2025. While the stated objective was to secure Bab el-Mandeb and the Red Sea, recent statements—particularly from the U.S.—targeting Iran through the Houthis have raised a critical question: could these attacks be considered a rehearsal for a potential air operation against Iran?

Indeed, following the U.S. strike on March 15, Donald Trump warned Iran to end its support for the Houthis, stating: “Any attack or retaliation by the Houthis will be met with overwhelming force. Iran will be held responsible for any Houthi attack, and the consequences will be severe.” Thus, the United States turned this operation into a show of regional deterrence.

In December 2024, Israel also launched a large-scale attack. Just one hour after the Houthis' ballistic missile strike on December 19, 14 Israeli fighter jets dropped 60 bombs on targets in Sana’a, claiming they had struck facilities storing weapons shipped from Iran. On December 26, Israel initiated a more extensive offensive, targeting Sana’a International Airport, the ports of Hudaydah, Salif, and Ras Kanatib, as well as energy infrastructure—killing six and wounding more than 40. The Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), who was at the airport during the attack, described the explosions as “deafening.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that the Houthis had launched over 200 ballistic missiles and around 170 drones since 2023, some of which caused casualties in Israel. He justified the strikes as acts of “legitimate self-defense” and stated that the operations would continue in coordination with the United States.

While both the U.S. and Israel justify the strikes as a response to the Houthis’ destabilizing actions, many analysts argue that these operations are part of a broader strategy. Specifically, various indicators and interpretations raise the question of whether Iran is the next intended target.

Israeli Brigadier General (Ret.) and Knesset Member Effi Eitam argued in a radio interview in December 2024 that the attacks were preparatory steps toward a campaign against Iran. “What we are seeing is essentially a general rehearsal,” Eitam stated, suggesting that the operations in Yemen serve as a drill for an inevitable military strike on Iran.

Military analyst Talal Okal offered a similar perspective, noting that Israel is trying to silence all regional fronts one by one in order to create favorable conditions for an eventual strike on Iran. Another expert, Dr. Jamal Harfoush, emphasized that Yemen's geographical and operational conditions—mountainous terrain and long distances—mirror some of the challenges Israel would face in Iran. According to Harfoush, Israel has used the Yemeni theater to conduct real-world experiments, testing capabilities such as long-range flights, in-air refueling, and maneuvering in expansive airspace—ultimately examining its ability to strike Iran.

Palestinian military expert and retired Major General Vassif Erekat similarly claimed that Israel views fronts such as Palestine, Lebanon, and Yemen as "laboratories" for testing military capabilities. He noted that the Yemen strikes were particularly aimed at testing long-range operational capacity. While Erekat acknowledged that striking Iranian targets—especially well-protected nuclear facilities—would be more difficult, he emphasized that the attacks had given the Israeli military valuable hands-on experience in aerial refueling, coordination, and precision targeting.

However, some analysts remain cautious about framing the Yemen operations as preparations for an attack on Iran. According to this view, Israel has repeatedly targeted Iran in the past, and the strikes in Yemen should be seen as part of a broader strategic agenda, not simply as a rehearsal. Others argue that the attacks were designed specifically to punish the Houthis for launching ballistic missiles and were not directly linked to a plan to strike Iran.

Although it is difficult to definitively categorize a military operation as a "rehearsal," certain indicators are noteworthy. First, the question of whether the flight distances involved in the Yemen strikes resemble those required for an Iran operation is crucial. Israeli fighter jets covered approximately 1,800 km to reach Yemen. The distance from Tel Aviv to Sana’a is about 2,000 km, while Tel Aviv to Tehran is roughly 1,500 km. These distances require long-range missions and aerial refueling—capabilities that Israel demonstrated in these operations using tanker aircraft.

Furthermore, according to some sources, Israeli aircraft continued flying after hitting Houthi targets, testing scenarios in which extended air time might be required during a potential Iran strike. The use of live ammunition by both the U.S. and Israel in these large-scale strikes is also significant. Israel’s deployment of precision-guided bombs and missiles has been characterized as a “live-fire rehearsal.” The operational cycle required to bomb an Iranian nuclear facility was, in effect, tested through attacks on Yemeni ports and airports.

Iran's reaction to these strikes was closely monitored. At a time when the prospect of a strike on Iran is being openly discussed, the Iranian Foreign Ministry strongly condemned the attacks, and the IRGC commander declared, “If our enemies take action, we will respond with devastating force.” The Houthis, for their part, claimed to have targeted a U.S. aircraft carrier in retaliation.

In conclusion, these strikes serve two major purposes. First, they aim to degrade the Houthis’ ability to threaten regional security. The Houthis clearly pose a danger both to Israel and to maritime navigation. In the short term, their offensive capabilities appear to have been weakened, and missile strikes on Israel have ceased.

Second, the connection between these operations and Iran cannot be ignored, even if they are not directly linked. It is evident that the U.S. intended to send a message to Iran, perhaps to pressure it into accepting negotiation terms. The remarks by Trump following the strikes, and Iran’s statement that no negotiations would take place under threat, demonstrate that these events cannot be viewed in isolation from Iran.

Thus, the attacks serve two fundamental objectives: sending a signal to Iran, and conducting a “rehearsal” for a possible military operation. While it may be reductive to interpret the attacks solely as a trial run for a future airstrike on Iran, it is undeniable that they contribute to preparations for a potential conflict. Military planners are likely to integrate lessons learned from the Yemen theater into operational scenarios involving Iran.

---

This article was originally published on the website of IRAM on March 28, 2025.