近期，因也門胡塞武裝襲擊經過紅海領域的國際商船而引發的紅海危機出現了進一步升級的危險。先是2024年1月12日凌晨，美國和英國出動戰鬥機對也門本土胡塞武裝控制的多處地點發動了聯合空中打擊，並由此激發了也門數十萬民眾走上街頭舉行反對美英和聲援巴勒斯坦的抗議遊行；緊接着當地時間1月15日晚間，胡塞武裝使用多枚導彈對亞丁灣一艘美國船隻發動襲擊並命中目標。美國與胡塞武裝間的直接軍事對抗顯然無助於紅海危機的解決，而是加劇了危機的升級。之所以超級軍事大國美國都無法搞定一個小小的胡塞武裝，這與當下的巴以衝突及美國左右為難的政策是分不開的。

首先，胡塞武裝把襲擊紅海商船與巴以衝突“捆綁”在一起，從“道義”和“正義”高度上先發制人、搶佔輿論高地。胡塞武裝聲稱，他們只襲擊經過紅海領域的以色列或與以色列關聯的商船，目的是為了施壓以色列停止對加沙的轟炸和聲援苦難中的巴勒斯坦民眾。這一說法自然是要撇清“襲擊商船”與以往索馬里海盜行為的區別，並對美國領導的多國紅海護航艦隊聯盟的行動形成掣肘。這種“捆綁”戰略也成功地使得除巴林以外的紅海沿岸中東國家無一加入美國領導的多國紅海護航艦隊聯盟，同時也使美國出手打擊胡塞武裝的行動從一開始就有了“投鼠忌器”的顧慮和“左右為難”的糾結。一方面，強力打擊胡塞武裝有可能“助力”胡塞武裝成為阿拉伯世界的“英雄”以及為巴勒斯坦事業挺身而出的“反美鬥士”；另一方面，美國則會進一步蛻變為以色列“屠殺”巴勒斯坦人的“幫凶”並使得美國自身利益與以色列的利益進行了“深度綁定”，而這又完全不利於拜登民主黨政府2024年的選情及美國全球戰略的布局。

其次，胡塞武裝的背後還有伊朗的支持，美國打擊胡塞武裝究竟是要把伊朗“引蛇出洞”，還是達到“敲山震虎”作用，這個分寸感也不太好拿捏。在特朗普政府時期，把伊朗定性為中東地區的“麻煩製造者”並強力遏制伊朗是美國中東政策的核心。雖然拜登政府的對伊朗政策不如特朗普時期那麼強硬，甚至把胡塞武裝也從恐怖組織的名單中刪除了，但隨着此輪巴以衝突的加劇、美國對以色列的堅定支持與伊朗對哈馬斯的堅定支持使得美國伊朗之間的矛盾對立再次尖銳化。胡塞武裝對經過紅海領域的國際商船的襲擊也自然被華盛頓認為是胡塞武裝背後的伊朗所策動的，打擊胡塞武裝也自然成為對伊朗地區影響力的打擊，似能對伊朗起到“敲山震虎”的作用。但如果打擊力度過大，也勢必會引起伊朗的反制，如果伊朗也直接加入到支持哈馬斯與以色列的戰鬥中，這絕對是美國不願意看到的。因此，這種分寸感拿捏的難度也使得美國在解決紅海危機的過程中出現了“左右為難”的困境。

最後，美國打擊胡塞武裝既未得到安理會授權，也無助於維護全球海運與供應鏈體系的運轉。聯合國安理會1月10日通過的關於紅海局勢的第2722號決議草案並未授權任何國家對也門使用武力，美英對也門這一主權國家採取的軍事行動不僅在法理上站不住腳，而且在實際效果上是加劇了紅海緊張局勢，無助於保護經紅海領域的商船安全和航行自由，美英的相關軍事行動還可能衝擊也門正在進行中的結束內戰的政治進程。目前的紅海危機已經嚴重影響到了全球海運與供應鏈體系的正常運轉，海運繞行南非好望角大幅增加了海運費用及貨物交付周期，對後疫情時代全球經濟的艱難恢復構成負面衝擊。

基於此，中國與阿拉伯國家聯盟在1月14日發佈的一份聯合聲明中強調，解決紅海危機應尊重也門國家主權和領土完整，同時確保紅海國際商業航線安全。應抵禦威脅航運通道安全的風險，這是關乎國際和平與安全的優先事項。呼籲各方推動局勢降溫，特別是儘快平息加沙戰火，防止外溢影響進一步擴大，切實維護地區和平與穩定。總之，和世界上面臨的各類危機一樣，紅海危機也需要從源頭加以綜合治理。

The Red Sea crisis, sparked by the Houthi assault on international merchant vessels, has recently shown signs of escalating danger. Initially, in the early hours of Jan. 12, the United States and the United Kingdom launched joint airstrikes on multiple targets under Houthi control within Yemen, prompting hundreds of thousands of Yemeni citizens to protest and show support for Palestine. Subsequently, on the evening of Jan. 15, Houthi forces struck a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Aden with several missiles.The direct military clash between the U.S. and Houthi forces clearly does little to help resolve the crisis in the Red Sea. The challenges faced by the United States (despite its military prowess) in addressing the relatively small Houthi faction are intricately connected to the persistent Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the complexities in U.S. foreign policy.

First and foremost, the Houthi forces have linked their attacks on merchant and commercial shipping in the Red Sea to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, seizing the rhetorical high ground on morality and justice. They assert that their targets are exclusively Israeli (or related merchant and commercial ships) traversing the Red Sea, and that their aim is to pressure Israel to cease its bombardment of Gaza, where they are in solidarity with the beleaguered Palestinian people. This stance is a clear attempt to distance Houthi actions from those of Somali pirates and to challenge the legitimacy of the U.S.-led multinational naval escort coalition in the Red Sea.This strategic linkage has effectively prevented all Middle Eastern nations along the Red Sea coast, except Bahrain, from joining the escort coalition. It has also led the United States to be cautious about striking Houthi forces, for fear that doing so could inadvertently elevate the Houthis to the status of heroes in the Arab world fighting for the Palestinian cause.Moreover, forceful action against the Houthis could further entangle U.S. interests with those of Israel, making it possible to portray the U.S. as an accomplice. This would help neither the Democratic Party's prospects in the 2024 elections under President Joe Biden nor the global strategic interests of the United States.

Second, the Houthi insurgency is supported by Iran, and the strategy to counter them — whether to draw them out or warn them off — is not easy to calibrate. During the Donald Trump administration, Iran was labeled as a troublemaker in the Middle East, and containing it was a cornerstone of U.S. policy in the region. The Biden administration has taken a less hard-line approach toward Iran than Trump did, even going as far as to remove the Houthis from its list of terrorist organizations. As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict intensifies, the U.S. has staunchly supported Israel, while Iran has solidly backed Hamas, resulting in a rekindled and intensified adversarial relationship between the U.S. and Iran.Washington believes the Houthi attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea are orchestrated by Iran. Striking at the Houthis is thus also a blow to Iran's regional clout. However, an overly aggressive campaign could provoke Iranian countermeasures, or even lead to Iran joining the conflict alongside Hamas against Israel, a scenario the U.S. would prefer to avoid.

The U.S. campaign against the Houthis has not been sanctioned by the UN Security Council. On Jan. 10, the council passed Draft Resolution 2722 which addresses the Red Sea situation but does not authorize any nation to use force against Yemen. The military actions of the U.S. and the U.K. against a sovereign nation lack legal footing.Moreover, the strikes could undermine the political process that aims to end Yemen's civil war. Practically speaking, the strikes against the Houthis have intensified tensions in the Red Sea region and failed to protect commercial ships or safeguard freedom of navigation. The current Red Sea crisis has significantly disrupted global maritime shipping and supply chains, with detours around South Africa's Cape of Good Hope greatly increasing transportation costs and the time required for delivery of goods. It also has a negative impact on the global economic recovery in the post-pandemic era.

In light of all this, China and the Arab League, in a joint statement released on Jan. 14, said that efforts to resolve the Red Sea crisis must uphold and respect the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Yemen, while also ensuring the security of international shipping lanes in the Red Sea. Defending against threats to the safety of shipping channels is a priority and essential element in international peace and security. All stakeholders should work toward de-escalation of tensions — by swiftly resolving the conflict in Gaza to prevent its effects from widening further, and by sincerely committing to the preservation of regional stability.