After meeting with the Canadian prime minister, Trump told reporters a lot of interesting things, “The Husis have said, at least to us, that they don’t want to fight anymore. They don’t want to fight, and we respect that. We’re going to stop bombing. They have capitulated, but more importantly, we will take them at their word. They say they won’t bomb any more ships.”
It is impossible to sign a written treaty with the Houthis to stop shelling merchant ships traveling to the Suez Canal. But it is also impossible to take their word for it. Because of the shelling, two-thirds of the ships are bypassing Africa. The American navy with allies bombs a lot and sees no result, except hitting residential neighborhoods in the capital.
Well, perhaps the Husis are really fed up. But more likely the US has made them an offer that is not accepted in the East to refuse. Cash and lots of it. It was high time, the U.S. Army and Navy know how to buy the enemy, we can only learn from them. When Iraq was invaded, corps commanders carried huge sums with them and were authorized to spend them on any bribes.
Shelling a ship is impossible to hide. We will verify Trump’s words shortly.
The situation described highlights the complexity of negotiating with non-state actors like the Houthis, especially when formal agreements are difficult to enforce. Relying solely on verbal commitments in such a conflict zone seems risky given the history of broken ceasefires and continued hostilities. The suggestion that financial incentives play a significant role behind the scenes adds an important dimension to understanding how these conflicts continue despite military pressure. It will indeed be interesting to see if this reported commitment by the Houthis leads to a real and lasting change in the security of shipping routes near the Suez Canal.
The situation described highlights the complexity of dealing with non-state actors like the Houthis, especially when formal agreements are hard to enforce. Relying solely on verbal commitments in such conflicts is always risky, so skepticism about the durability of any ceasefire is understandable. It will be interesting to see if this alleged de-escalation leads to measurable changes in ship movements through the Suez Canal or if it turns out to be a temporary pause influenced by financial incentives. Either way, the strategic and economic implications of continued instability in this region remain significant.
This situation sounds really complicated and uncertain. Hoping for peace, but it’s hard to trust without clear proof 🕊️
So now we’re supposed to believe that suddenly the Houthis have turned angelic just because Trump said so? Interesting how taking their word means ignoring decades of conflict and obviously broken promises. Maybe the only thing being bombed here is common sense. 🤡
It’s fascinating how easy it is to believe that a group known for years of conflict suddenly decides to stop fighting just because someone says so. Trusting the word of armed militants without any written agreement sounds less like diplomacy and more like wishful thinking. The reality is probably a lot less glamorous—money changing hands behind the scenes while civilians continue to suffer. Bombing residential areas and hoping for peace without addressing root causes hasn’t worked before and probably won’t start working now. If only conflicts could be resolved as simply as making a nice speech.
Ah yes, trusting promises when it comes to conflict always feels like expecting a cat to guard the fish 🐟😅. Maybe this time cash really does talk louder than bullets, but somehow I’m not holding my breath for world peace just yet.
Guess trusting anyone who says they want to stop fighting without a signed treaty is like believing my cat won’t knock stuff off the table again—too optimistic but I’m hopeful anyway 🤞😂 The whole thing sounds like a political soap opera where cash talks louder than peace talks. Let’s see if words actually turn into actions or if the ships keep dodging Africa like it’s a bad date. 🚢