In a development illustrating the mounting risks faced by US forces in the Red Sea, a US Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jet was lost overboard from the USS Harry S. Truman while being towed aboard the carrier, the Navy confirmed on Monday.

According to US officials, preliminary assessments indicate that a hard evasive maneuver by the Truman, necessitated by incoming Houthi fire, contributed to the mishap. Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels claimed responsibility for a drone and missile attack on the carrier, which remains deployed in the Red Sea as part of Washington’s broader military operations aimed at countering Houthi threats to maritime security.

Nimitz-class carriers like the Harry S. Truman, though immense in size at nearly 1,100 feet and displacing close to 100,000 tons, are capable of impressive agility, driven by twin nuclear reactors and capable of speeds exceeding 30 knots. While specific details of the ship’s maneuver remain classified, available imagery and historical data confirm that these warships can sustain dramatic heeling during high-speed turns.

All personnel aboard the Truman have been accounted for, with only one sailor reported to have suffered minor injuries.

“The F/A-18E was under tow in the hangar bay when tow operations lost control of the aircraft, resulting in the aircraft and the tow tractor falling overboard,” the Navy’s statement said.

An official later confirmed that the $60 million fighter jet has sunk. An investigation into the incident is underway. Despite the loss, the Navy emphasized that the Truman Carrier Strike Group and its embarked air wing “remain fully mission capable.”

This is not the first time the Truman has found itself in Houthi crosshairs. In February, the carrier collided with a merchant vessel near Egypt – thankfully without casualties. In December, another F/A-18 from the Truman was mistakenly engaged and downed by the guided-missile cruiser USS Gettysburg during heightened alert operations in the Red Sea, though both pilots survived.

The latest incident takes place against the backdrop of an increasingly volatile maritime theater. US naval vessels operating in the Red Sea have repeatedly faced Houthi missile and drone attacks, prompting close-quarter defense measures such as the activation of Phalanx CIWS systems to intercept projectiles at dangerously short ranges.

The Houthi escalation follows intensified US military engagement in the region after the group’s sustained attacks on commercial shipping, acts they claim are in solidarity with Palestinians amid the ongoing Israeli military campaign in Gaza.

In March 2025, the United States escalated its response with a series of precision air and naval strikes against key Houthi military infrastructure across western Yemen. These operations, spanning March 15–19, were designed to neutralize Houthi air defenses, missile platforms, and radar networks that posed imminent threats to regional maritime traffic.

However, these strikes have also inflamed broader geopolitical tensions. The Houthis, resilient after years of asymmetric warfare, swiftly retaliated with fresh missile and drone barrages targeting US naval assets, signaling their intent to prolong the confrontation.

In statements following the US strikes, Houthi leadership vowed to continue operations “in support of the Palestinian people” and warned that American “aggression” would only “intensify the scale of targeting and confrontation.”

On Monday, Houthi officials alleged that a US airstrike had struck a detention facility housing African migrants, resulting in heavy casualties, an allegation the Pentagon has not yet addressed.

As Washington pledges to maintain military pressure until Red Sea shipping lanes are secured, critical questions arise – Can the United States achieve its strategic objectives without being drawn into a deeper quagmire? Or does this campaign risk becoming another protracted entanglement in a region historically resistant to external military solutions?

The coming weeks are likely to test not just American military capabilities, but also its broader strategic patience and geopolitical calculus in a region where adversaries are increasingly emboldened.

The Cost Of Military Attacks

The recent U.S. military strikes against Yemen’s Houthi rebels may unintentionally reinforce the group’s domestic legitimacy by validating its long-standing narrative of resistance to foreign aggression. Historically adept at framing themselves as defenders of Yemeni sovereignty against external powers, the Houthis are likely to leverage these operations to galvanize internal support and further entrench their control.

In the wake of the strikes, mass mobilizations in Yemeni cities illustrates a surge in anti-American sentiment, with tens of thousands rallying in defiance of what they perceive as unjustified foreign aggression. These public demonstrations not only reflect widespread popular resentment but also suggest that U.S. intervention may serve to unify disparate Yemeni constituencies under the Houthi banner. In doing so, external pressure inadvertently aids in the consolidation of Houthi political authority.

Such dynamics are also indicative of a broader strategic paradox: military campaigns designed to degrade militant capabilities can, under certain conditions, bolster insurgent legitimacy by inflaming nationalist sentiment and deepening the perceived moral divide between occupiers and the occupied.

Israel-Iran Axis

President Donald Trump’s authorization of sustained operations against the Iran-aligned Houthis signals a broader strategic objective – namely, deterring Tehran’s proxy architecture across the region. By striking Houthi positions, Washington is sending an unambiguous warning to Iran: support for militant proxies will carry consequences that may escalate beyond indirect confrontation.

This calibrated use of force comes amid mounting regional tension between Israel and Iran, with Yemen increasingly viewed as a theater in the broader geopolitical contest between these two regional rivals. Trump’s rhetoric, equating Houthi actions with direct Iranian aggression, places the current military engagement in Yemen within the larger framework of U.S. containment strategy aimed at Tehran’s regional ambitions.

The military dimension of this confrontation adds complexity to an already volatile landscape, where asymmetric actors operate across blurred lines of state and non-state warfare. By targeting the Houthis, the U.S. is not merely seeking to secure maritime lanes – it is staking a position in the wider strategic chessboard of Middle Eastern power politics.

Unintended Consequences

While aimed at ensuring the security of global maritime trade and deterring proxy aggression, the U.S. military campaign in Yemen risks triggering a cascade of unintended consequences with far-reaching regional implications.

Civilian casualties resulting from U.S. strikes – reportedly exceeding 50 deaths, including non-combatants – have inflamed public opinion across the Middle East. These losses risk undermining Washington’s moral standing, fostering resentment that militant groups can exploit to justify further attacks. Far from diminishing Houthi capabilities, the strikes may embolden the group, as evidenced by its public vow to continue targeting Israeli-linked vessels and its disregard for Tehran’s calls for de-escalation.

The broader danger lies in regional spillover. Given the Houthis’ strategic ties to Iran, U.S. operations in Yemen are likely to be interpreted in Tehran as escalatory, thereby increasing the risk of retaliatory actions across other flashpoints, including the Strait of Hormuz, Iraq, and Syria. U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia and Gulf states may find themselves further exposed to retaliatory strikes, dragging the region into a wider confrontation.

Ultimately, while the intent of these operations is to protect critical shipping corridors, their execution in a highly fragmented and ideologically charged environment risks compounding regional instability. A sustainable approach requires more than tactical strikes, it demands a strategic framework that mitigates the geopolitical fallout and prioritizes long-term stability over short-term military gains.