The Independent's journalism is supported by our readers. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn commission. This extremist group has found a new way to threaten the global economy: cheap drones Cheap drone technology has given the Yemeni rebels a stranglehold on global shipping pinch points in Arabian Peninsula – and the attack on Saudi Arabia’s critical East-West oil pipeline shows how else they plan to use it, says Mark Almond There is a dangerous tendency to treat the renewed conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemen’s Houthi Shiite group as a sideshow to the simmering US-Iran war on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula.

But in many ways, it is a much more destabilising threat than even Donald Trump’s costly conflict – whether as a general threat to world supply chains, or specifically to oil supplies – than even the blockade by Iran of the Strait of Hormuz. Yes, global supplies of oil, gas and fertiliser have been dramatically cut by the Iranian threat to Gulf shipping.

But the Red Sea is an even bigger and more varied transport corridor right up to the Suez Canal. Saudi Arabia had tried to redirect its oil export along the East-West pipeline to the Red Sea port of Yanbu. But the Houthis’ bombing of a range of pumping stations along it – as well as their ability to hit management targets in Yanbu itself – have stemmed the oil flow.

At the moment, the Houthis emphasise that they are only fighting the Saudis and their Yemeni “proxies”, but no one trusts the war against shipping to be limited to these targets. The problem for companies sending billions of dollars of Far Eastern cars and electronics through the Red Sea is that it makes more sense to hedge against the risks of losing a container ship and its expensive cargo by re-routing around Africa.

That adds two weeks or more to the transit time, but at least it is safe from drone attacks. While this secures the cargo, it is at the expense of a hike in prices to the consumer. The Saudi v Houthis conflict is likely to have a broader effect on the world economy even than Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

The Houthis may operate according to their own agenda, but the Iranians and Houthis agree on the key points of strategy. The Houthis’ formidable arsenal of ballistic missiles and drones also have an Iranian source, either actual supplies or knowledge of the technology shared.

It should be a sharp warning to all commercial states – above all, the USA and China – that missile and drone technology is now available to desperately poor states. Per capita, Yemen is poorer than Haiti. Weapons of global disruption are in effect available to all – certainly to those whose geography, like the Houthis’, gives them a hold on a global pinch point.

The local consequences of the Houthis’ gaining control of the narrow Bab al-Mandab are severe. Even before this crisis, Saudi Arabia was suffering a sharp shortfall in its revenues. The Saudis have been making savage cuts. Western media might have noticed the dropping of professional partnerships with golf tournaments and New York’s Metropolitan Opera.

But the domestic projects of the Crown Prince are beginning to suffer, too. Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto ruler of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is caught in a trap: should he revert to the expensive but failed military strategy against the Houthis which he launched in 2015?

Or should he make a deal with them and Iran that saves the Saudi economy, but leaves his regime looking fatally weak? If the Crown Prince buys peace now, he could face more blackmail in the near future. Despite the Houthis’ strikes, a newly forged alliance with Turkey and Pakistan has not yet been activated.

Saudi Arabia’s old ally, Egypt, is pondering whether it can afford sending troops to fight the Houthis. Egypt’s original military dictator, Nasser, burnt his fingers badly intervening against the Houthis’ grandparents in the 1960s. President Sisi does not need to relearn the lesson.

President Trump has twice rebuffed the Saudi Crown Prince’s request for US military assistance. Bin Salman’s recent largesse to the Trump investment family has not been repaid with security. Only Israel seems willing to offer air support against the Yemeni group, which fired missiles at the country in the aftermath of October 7th.

But to accept Israeli help would be a terrible blow to the Saudi family as the protectors of Islam’s holiest places. The complex local rivalries and clan loyalties are what makes the global reverberations of this conflict so difficult to resolve. The United States has been revealed to be a one-shot, slow-to-reload superpower.

Thirty years ago, Washington planned to fight two major wars at once. Now it can fight a small war to stalemate. So small states and militias are left to fight it out – regardless of the consequences for the world economy. Mark Almond is the director of the Crisis Research Institute, Oxford To continue reading this article...

You have [%% article number %%] left to read... Try 6 months for just €1 SUBSCRIBE NOW - Full access to Premium news analysis - Advert-free reading across Independent.co.uk - The Independent app with Premium features Subscription renews automatically and you can turn off auto-renewal at any time.

By placing my order, I acknowledge that my subscription will start immediately and I accept that I will lose the right to cancel my subscription in the first 14 days. The Independent reserves the right to withdraw this promotion at any time.

The UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission has called for an immediate ceasefire after reported U.S. airstrikes in Hormozgan province resulted in civilian casualties, a situation the body states raises serious questions regarding the protection of civilians, though no war crimes have been officially determined.

According to reports, strikes on a home in Kuhestak and a residence in Qeshm allegedly killed at least six people and injured others, with the UN noting these areas are home to historically marginalized Baloch and Sunni communities.

UN mission finds grounds to believe US committed war crimes in Iran GENEVA, Sept 17 (Reuters) - A UN fact-finding mission on Iran said on Thursday it had reasonable grounds to believe the United States was behind two military strikes on a school and sports facility in Iran in February, and that these constituted war crimes.

It also found that Iranian authorities committed crimes against humanity during their deadly crackdown on anti-government protests. The findings in a new report by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran, to be submitted to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, examined the US's conduct during the Iran war that began in February and the Iranian government's response to nationwide unrest that begun in late December.

The Iranian and US permanent missions in Geneva did not immediately respond to Reuters requests for comment. US officials have previously said military operations are conducted in accordance with the law of armed conflict, while Iran has consistently rejected allegations of systematic rights violations.

Minab school strike The UN experts said they found reasonable grounds to believe US forces were responsible for an attack on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in the city of Minab, where more than 150 people were killed, including around 120 schoolchildren, according to Iranian officials.

The attack constituted an indiscriminate attack causing civilian deaths and damage to civilian infrastructure, amounting to a war crime under international law, the mission concluded. According to the report, the US relied on intelligence suggesting a senior Iranian military commander was present at the site but failed to adequately verify the information before launching the strike.

Investigators said the failure to update targeting intelligence and confirm the building was a military objective amounted to more than mere negligence. "Rather, the US directed the strikes at the building of the school while being aware of a substantial risk of striking a civilian object and acting recklessly as regards the possibility that this would happen.

" In June US President Donald Trump said that "nobody" purposefully attacked a girls' school in Iran in February, citing an investigation into the incident. Reuters first reported that an initial internal U.S. military investigation showed US forces were likely responsible for the fatal strike in Minab in southern Iran.

The Pentagon has since elevated the probe but it has not published any preliminary findings. UN experts said the school was a clearly identifiable civilian object and found no evidence that it was being used for military purposes. The experts reached a similar conclusion over a strike on a sports centre in Lamerd.

The report said the attack damaged nearby residential buildings and a school and killed and injured 22 civilians. It concluded that the strike was indiscriminate and therefore constituted a war crime. US Central Command said in a statement in March that US forces did not launch any strikes into the city of Lamerd on that day.

Iran abuses The UN mission probe found that the Iranian authorities carried out a widespread and systematic attack against civilians during protests that erupted in late December last year, involving unlawful killings, torture, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances and severe restrictions on freedom of expression.

Rights groups say bystanders were among those killed during the biggest crackdown since Shi'ite Muslim clerics took power in the 1979 revolution. Tehran blamed "terrorists and rioters" backed by exiled opponents and foreign foes the US and Israel. The probe said it could not independently verify the death toll, but that it believed the number of dead and injured was likely far higher than official figures which say 3,038 people were killed, and 25,000 people injured.

The government's response to the protests - including violence and killings, cutting off the internet and use of the death penalty, marked a significant escalation from previous patterns of suppressing dissent, the report said.

Analysts suggest that the U.S. may be underestimating the cybersecurity risks associated with ongoing tensions with Iran, particularly regarding vulnerabilities in infrastructure that support military logistics. While Iran possesses fewer advanced cyber capabilities than other state actors, it has employed documented, repeatable techniques aimed at disrupting critical infrastructure and public services to exert pressure on Washington.