The bloody civil war raging in Yemen gets little attention in the American media, but some commentators have begun to take notice and express concern about the brutal toll it is exacting on the civilian population. Most recently, the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof lambasted the U.S. “for helping to kill, maim, and starve Yemeni children.” This accusation rests on the fact that Washington is providing Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates with munitions and technical advice as they wage an aerial campaign to support the Yemenite government against the Iran-backed Houthi rebels. To Robert Nicholson, Kristof’s evaluation of the situation is both deeply misinformed and deeply misguided:

The truth is that the U.S. is not killing or maiming innocent people in Yemen. The U.S. is supporting the elected government of Yemen as it tries to take back the country from a Shiite political sect called Ansar Allah (commonly called the “Houthis”) that overran the capital and the northern part of the country in 2014. The Islamic Republic of Iran supports Ansar Allah, which is similar in many ways to the Iranian-backed Hizballah faction in Lebanon.

Lest anyone be confused about its ideology, Ansar Allah has helpfully emblazoned its less-than-subtle manifesto on its flag: “God is great. Death to America. Death to Israel. Curse the Jews. Victory to Islam.” . . .

The U.S. has legitimate objectives in Yemen: restoring an elected government that was unlawfully overthrown. Thwarting a violent Islamic sect that seeks to kill those who don’t abide by its theology. Countering Iran’s regional expansion. Preventing territorial safe havens for Islamic State and al-Qaeda fighters who have profited from [the country’s] collapse. All of these harmonize with our values and interests.

But Kristof and others are right to be concerned about the humanitarian toll. It is truly staggering. The U.S. has sent almost a billion dollars in aid to Yemen since the beginning of 2017, but much more is needed. So long as we are playing a role in the war, even an indirect one, we must minimize human casualties and ensure that our military partners do the same. We have the leverage to rein in Saudi Arabia and the UAE; we must use it.

However, Kristof’s moralistic sermonizing and reductionism won’t do anything except aggravate partisan squabbling in the U.S. To say, [as Kristof has done], that Americans “are willing to starve Yemeni schoolchildren” because “we dislike Iran’s ayatollahs” is so simplistic as to be immoral in itself. That kind of sentimental, grade-school analysis of complex events gets us no closer to discerning a just course of action.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.