If Israelis are learning things, American leaders seem to be forgetting them. One is that the United States is prosperous because it can trade freely over the world’s waterways, and that its navy exists primarily to secure this freedom. This is the U.S. Navy’s own definition of its purpose, and has been since the 18th century. But it has done very little of consequence to stop Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels from destroying commerce through the Red Sea. Just last week, the Houthis disabled a Greek oil tanker, which since then has been on fire and likely leaking its cargo into the water. They hit two more ships yesterday. Elliott Abrams comments:

A recent article in the Telegraph newspaper in London by the former Royal Navy commander Tom Sharpe was titled “The Houthis Have Defeated the U.S. Navy.” If that is not correct, it is only because the U.S. Navy has been ordered not to fight.

The navy isn’t seeking to abandon that role and there are many reports that it wishes to do more to defeat the Houthi attacks that . . . have decimated Suez Canal traffic. But it has not been given a green light by the White House, which seeks to avoid what it calls “escalation,” especially (one might guess) in the pre-election period.

A thought experiment: instead of defending ships that are attacked by the Houthis, or trying to take out launch sites one by one, what if the United States told Iran that we would respond to further missile strikes by hitting targets in Iran, the supplier of the missiles? . . . What if Iran were told that for every ship sunk by the Houthis, the United States (and, one hopes, its allies) would sink an Iranian ship?

I can hear the screeches now: this is escalation, this means war, this would create instability. But the instability comes from Iran’s aggression—its delivery of weaponry to Yemen with the intent that the weapons be fired to prevent innocent maritime activity and to attack U.S. and other naval vessels. That’s an act of war.

Israel will likely respond directly against Iran after yesterday’s attack, and has made known that it will calibrate its retaliation based not on the extent of the damage, but on the scale of the attack. The specifics are anyone’s guess, but Edward Luttwak has a suggestion, put forth in an article published just hours before the missile barrage: cut off Tehran’s ability to send money and arms to Shiite Arab militias.

In practice, most of this cash comes from a single source: oil. . . . In other words, the flow of dollars that sustains Israel’s enemies, and which has caused so much trouble to Western interests from the Syrian desert to the Red Sea, emanates almost entirely from the oil loaded onto tankers at the export terminal on Khark Island, a speck of land about 25 kilometers off Iran’s southern coast. Benjamin Netanyahu warned in his recent speech to the UN General Assembly that Israel’s “long arm” can reach them too. Indeed, Khark’s location in the Persian Gulf is relatively close. At 1,516 kilometers from Israel’s main airbase, it’s far closer than the Houthis’ main oil import terminal at Hodeida in Yemen—a place that was destroyed by Israeli jets in July, and attacked again [on Sunday].