近期，因也门胡塞武装袭击经过红海领域的国际商船而引发的红海危机出现了进一步升级的危险。先是2024年1月12日凌晨，美国和英国出动战斗机对也门本土胡塞武装控制的多处地点发动了联合空中打击，并由此激发了也门数十万民众走上街头举行反对美英和声援巴勒斯坦的抗议游行；紧接着当地时间1月15日晚间，胡塞武装使用多枚导弹对亚丁湾一艘美国船只发动袭击并命中目标。美国与胡塞武装间的直接军事对抗显然无助于红海危机的解决，而是加剧了危机的升级。之所以超级军事大国美国都无法搞定一个小小的胡塞武装，这与当下的巴以冲突及美国左右为难的政策是分不开的。

首先，胡塞武装把袭击红海商船与巴以冲突“捆绑”在一起，从“道义”和“正义”高度上先发制人、抢占舆论高地。胡塞武装声称，他们只袭击经过红海领域的以色列或与以色列关联的商船，目的是为了施压以色列停止对加沙的轰炸和声援苦难中的巴勒斯坦民众。这一说法自然是要撇清“袭击商船”与以往索马里海盗行为的区别，并对美国领导的多国红海护航舰队联盟的行动形成掣肘。这种“捆绑”战略也成功地使得除巴林以外的红海沿岸中东国家无一加入美国领导的多国红海护航舰队联盟，同时也使美国出手打击胡塞武装的行动从一开始就有了“投鼠忌器”的顾虑和“左右为难”的纠结。一方面，强力打击胡塞武装有可能“助力”胡塞武装成为阿拉伯世界的“英雄”以及为巴勒斯坦事业挺身而出的“反美斗士”；另一方面，美国则会进一步蜕变为以色列“屠杀”巴勒斯坦人的“帮凶”并使得美国自身利益与以色列的利益进行了“深度绑定”，而这又完全不利于拜登民主党政府2024年的选情及美国全球战略的布局。

其次，胡塞武装的背后还有伊朗的支持，美国打击胡塞武装究竟是要把伊朗“引蛇出洞”，还是达到“敲山震虎”作用，这个分寸感也不太好拿捏。在特朗普政府时期，把伊朗定性为中东地区的“麻烦制造者”并强力遏制伊朗是美国中东政策的核心。虽然拜登政府的对伊朗政策不如特朗普时期那么强硬，甚至把胡塞武装也从恐怖组织的名单中删除了，但随着此轮巴以冲突的加剧、美国对以色列的坚定支持与伊朗对哈马斯的坚定支持使得美国伊朗之间的矛盾对立再次尖锐化。胡塞武装对经过红海领域的国际商船的袭击也自然被华盛顿认为是胡塞武装背后的伊朗所策动的，打击胡塞武装也自然成为对伊朗地区影响力的打击，似能对伊朗起到“敲山震虎”的作用。但如果打击力度过大，也势必会引起伊朗的反制，如果伊朗也直接加入到支持哈马斯与以色列的战斗中，这绝对是美国不愿意看到的。因此，这种分寸感拿捏的难度也使得美国在解决红海危机的过程中出现了“左右为难”的困境。

最后，美国打击胡塞武装既未得到安理会授权，也无助于维护全球海运与供应链体系的运转。联合国安理会1月10日通过的关于红海局势的第2722号决议草案并未授权任何国家对也门使用武力，美英对也门这一主权国家采取的军事行动不仅在法理上站不住脚，而且在实际效果上是加剧了红海紧张局势，无助于保护经红海领域的商船安全和航行自由，美英的相关军事行动还可能冲击也门正在进行中的结束内战的政治进程。目前的红海危机已经严重影响到了全球海运与供应链体系的正常运转，海运绕行南非好望角大幅增加了海运费用及货物交付周期，对后疫情时代全球经济的艰难恢复构成负面冲击。

基于此，中国与阿拉伯国家联盟在1月14日发布的一份联合声明中强调，解决红海危机应尊重也门国家主权和领土完整，同时确保红海国际商业航线安全。应抵御威胁航运通道安全的风险，这是关乎国际和平与安全的优先事项。呼吁各方推动局势降温，特别是尽快平息加沙战火，防止外溢影响进一步扩大，切实维护地区和平与稳定。总之，和世界上面临的各类危机一样，红海危机也需要从源头加以综合治理。

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.