It is not yet clear to what extent the Israeli assault on Gaza and the ongoing American assault on Houthi positions in Yemen, which began over the weekend, were coordinated in advance. But they certainly have a complementary effect, exerting simultaneous pressure on Iran. Here in the U.S., the attack on the Houthis has met with criticism from the hard left, which is eager to idealize murderous jihadists, and from elements of the right, which protest that this is a needless “foreign adventure,” expending American treasure while risking a wider conflict.

Charles C.W. Cooke primarily addresses the latter in explaining that this defense of international shipping lanes is “literally what the government is for.”

Even if American ships had not been targeted, this would represent a problem for the United States, which, since 1945, has taken over the indispensable role of global naval hegemon that, since 1805, had been played by the British empire. . . . The free movement of goods and people that so many of us take for granted is the direct consequence of a morally virtuous country being the most important player on the world stage. Put any other nation in that position—be it China, Russia, or even France—and things would look rather different.

As a result of the Houthis’ behavior, ships coming in and out of America have been forced to take expensive detours around southern Africa. This has caused delays, driven up the price of both imports and exports, and contributed to persistent inflation. Per one estimate, three quarters of all U.S. and UK vessels have been dissuaded from traversing the Red Sea since the Houthis’ attacks began, which has effectively rendered use of the Suez Canal as an occasional option rather than the default. If there is a circumstance in which the American military is more presumptively permitted to intervene at will, I’d like to hear it.

Addressing a recent meeting of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Central Committee, Mahmoud Abbas criticized Hamas more sharply than he has previously (at least in public), calling them “sons of dogs.” The eighty-nine-year-old Palestinian Authority president urged the terrorist group to “stop the war of extermination in Gaza” and “hand over the American hostages.” The editors of the New York Sun comment:

Mr. Abbas has long been at odds with Hamas, which violently ousted his Fatah party from Gaza in 2007. The tone of today’s outburst, though, is new. Comparing rivals to canines, which Arabs consider dirty, is startling. Its motivation, though, was unrelated to the plight of the 59 remaining hostages, including 23 living ones. Instead, it was an attempt to use an opportune moment for reviving Abbas’s receding clout.

[W]hile Hamas’s popularity among Palestinians soared after its orgy of killing on October 7, 2023, it is now sinking. The terrorists are hoarding Gaza aid caches that Israel declines to replenish. As the war drags on, anti-Hamas protests rage across the Strip. Polls show that Hamas’s previously elevated support among West Bank Arabs is also down. Striking the iron while it’s hot, Abbas apparently longs to retake center stage. Can he?

Diminishing support for Hamas is yet to match the contempt Arabs feel toward Abbas himself. Hamas considers him irrelevant for what it calls “the resistance.”

[Meanwhile], Abbas is yet to condemn Hamas’s October 7 massacre. His recent announcement of ending alms for terror is a ruse.

Abbas, it’s worth noting, hasn’t saved all his epithets for Hamas. He also twice said of the Americans, “may their fathers be cursed.” Of course, after a long career of anti-Semitic incitement, Abbas can’t be expected to have a moral awakening. Nor is there much incentive for him to fake one. But, like the protests in Gaza, Abbas’s recent diatribe is a sign that Hamas is perceived as weak and that its stock is sinking.