President Donald Trump made a sudden and dramatic declaration: the United States had defeated Yemen’s Houthi rebels, and the military campaign would cease immediately. Framed as a decisive American triumph, the announcement came without warning, ending two months of intense airstrikes that had cost the United States more than a billion dollars and achieved little in terms of strategic gains.
Now, it appears that the declaration was not prompted by military success but by the harsh realities on the battlefield. According to an explosive report by The New York Times, the U.S. campaign was faltering badly. Despite relentless bombardment, the Houthis were not only still standing — they were actively firing on American ships and nearly succeeded in taking down some of the most advanced fighter jets in the U.S. arsenal.
The U.S. operation, which began in March 2025, was ostensibly aimed at deterring the Houthis from targeting commercial and military vessels in the Red Sea, a vital international shipping lane. But after eight weeks of airstrikes and drone missions, the results were dismal.
The U.S. lost at least seven MQ-9 Reaper drones, each costing roughly $30 million. These unmanned aircraft, typically deployed for surveillance and targeted strikes, were taken down one by one over Yemeni airspace. Some were struck by surface-to-air missiles, while others are suspected to have been brought down by electronic warfare tactics — jamming and spoofing signals — which the Houthis are believed to have developed with Iranian and possibly Russian assistance.
These losses alone accounted for over $200 million in destroyed hardware. In addition, two F/A-18 Super Hornets — carrier-based multirole fighter jets priced at over $65 million apiece — were also lost. The first plunged into the Red Sea on April 28 after the USS Harry S. Truman had to make an emergency maneuver to avoid incoming Houthi missiles. The aircraft, being towed at the time, rolled overboard.
The second was lost on May 6, the same day Trump declared victory. A failed landing caused by a malfunction in the arresting gear forced the pilots to eject, and the Super Hornet slid off the carrier deck into the sea.
These losses, though costly, paled in comparison to what nearly happened next.
What alarmed Pentagon officials most was not the hardware already lost, but the aircraft that came dangerously close to being shot down. According to multiple sources cited by The New York Times, Houthi-operated air defense systems nearly hit several F-16s and even an F-35 stealth fighter jet during sorties over northern Yemen.
This is no ordinary close call. The F-35 is a fifth-generation multirole stealth fighter designed to be nearly invisible to radar. Its detection by a militia force, much less the possibility of it being shot down, would be a catastrophic blow to U.S. defense credibility.
“Several American F-16s and an F-35 fighter jet were nearly struck by Houthi air defenses, making real the possibility of American casualties,” the report noted, quoting multiple U.S. officials.
That phrase — “the real possibility of American casualties” — reportedly became a critical turning point for the Trump administration. Facing the risk of a U.S. pilot being shot down, captured, or even paraded on Houthi television, the White House scrambled for an off-ramp.
And the Houthis offered one.
In backchannel negotiations reportedly mediated by Oman and Iran, the Houthis agreed to stop targeting U.S. vessels — but only U.S. vessels. They made no commitment to halt attacks on ships they deem complicit with Israeli interests.
In exchange, the U.S. agreed to stop bombing Houthi positions. The deal offered both sides a way out. For the Houthis, it meant ending the relentless bombing campaign. For Trump, it meant avoiding the political fallout of escalating into another Middle Eastern quagmire during a volatile election year.
But while Trump framed the outcome as a U.S. victory, the truth is far more complicated. The Houthis, often dismissed as a ragtag militia, held their ground against the world’s most advanced military.
The campaign in Yemen exposes a deeper, more unsettling trend: the erosion of Western air superiority in asymmetric warfare.
That a militia force — albeit one backed by Iran and possibly China or Russia — could come close to downing an F-35 or F-16 fighter jet is not just a battlefield anomaly. It is a warning.
The Houthis’ arsenal, which includes Iranian-made Sayyad-2C and Saqr missiles and Soviet-era SA-6 systems, is now paired with mobile launchers and effective radar systems. Their adaptability and tactical evolution mirror the strategies of Hezbollah and other non-state actors, blending guerrilla tactics with increasingly sophisticated weaponry.
The fact that they can detect and track stealth aircraft suggests a paradigm shift. If Houthi systems can challenge the F-35, more advanced air defense networks in China or Russia would likely pose a serious threat to its operational viability.
The U.S. has invested over $1.7 trillion in the F-35 program. It’s the linchpin of NATO’s next-generation air strategy. Exported to 19 countries and eyed by others — including Saudi Arabia, India, and Turkey — the F-35’s reputation for invincibility is crucial for its global marketability.
A confirmed loss, or even a confirmed hit, would be a branding catastrophe for Lockheed Martin and a strategic black eye for the U.S.
This incident is not isolated. In recent months, reports have emerged of Western fighter jets being bested in conflict zones once considered “low-threat environments.”
In India, speculation is swirling around the downing of up to three French-made Rafale fighters, reportedly shot down by Chinese J-16s using advanced PL-15 missiles. In Ukraine, at least two F-16s provided by the U.S. were reportedly destroyed by Russian S-400 missile batteries.
The trend is stark: high-tech Western jets are increasingly vulnerable in regional theaters dominated by evolving, networked, and mobile anti-air capabilities.
The Trump administration’s decision to declare victory may have been less about narrative control and more about damage control. With a presidential election looming, the White House is acutely aware that American casualties, or worse, a captured pilot, would dominate the headlines and potentially crater public support.
Trump’s foreign policy legacy has long centered on avoiding endless wars. A new Middle Eastern ground war — particularly one against an enemy as entrenched and ideologically motivated as the Houthis — would contradict that stance.
But in opting for disengagement, Trump has handed the Houthis a significant psychological victory. They have survived a full-blown U.S. bombing campaign, inflicted real damage, and emerged with their leverage intact.
In military circles, the Yemen campaign will be studied for years. It marks one of the clearest examples of the limitations of air power in the face of asymmetric warfare. It also underscores the importance of adapting to threats that blend state and non-state capabilities.
The Pentagon will need to reassess its assumptions about air dominance, drone survivability, and the effectiveness of stealth technology. Meanwhile, arms manufacturers like Lockheed Martin may need to address rising concerns among foreign buyers about the true combat resilience of their most advanced platforms.
In geopolitical terms, the U.S. withdrawal leaves a vacuum. Iran, already a key backer of the Houthis, is likely to capitalize on the outcome to bolster its influence in the region. And for countries like China and Russia, the U.S. campaign in Yemen offers a case study in how Western air power can be countered — and possibly defeated — with cheaper, mobile, and smarter systems.
President Trump’s surprise victory speech on May 6 may have been politically expedient, but beneath the surface, it signaled something more sobering: the limits of American military dominance in a changing world.
The war in Yemen didn’t end with a bang, but with a quiet, negotiated exit. Not because the U.S. won — but because staying risked losing far more than just aircraft.
