Why the new European Union naval mission won't stop attacks in the Red Sea

This week, the European Union launched a highly anticipated Red Sea naval mission to deter ongoing attacks from Yemen’s Houthis and protect cargo ships.

The Naval Force Operation Aspides is set to commit European warships and airborne early warning systems to the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and accompanying maritime territory. In a statement on X, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen hailed the move as a "step towards a stronger European presence at sea" and an essential crisis response.

But close military coordination with the United States and authorisation of retaliatory fire on Houthis suggest the move could escalate tensions in the Red Sea, not diminish them.

Brussels faces immense pressure to protect its economic and trade interests in the strategically crucial waterway as more than 90 percent of all goods to Europe come via sea.

The EU also wants to clear supply bottlenecks and prevent the rerouting of international shipping in the Red Sea. The latter has raised shipment costs by nearly 400 percent, and even threatened a tea shortage in the UK.

However, its new mission is big on military participation and risks potential confrontation with the Houthis. The limits to this approach were made clear by the US-led naval protection force that was set up in December.

It failed to curb rising Houthi attacks on commercial and military shipping or establish any form of effective deterrence to protect global trade.

Brussels risks repeating that same counterproductive logic by committing more warships to sea. The mission has been described as a "robustly equipped military operation" that will ensure that no attacks are carried out "on Yemeni soil."

Yet, the EU offers very little clarity on its leverage to end these attacks. Similarly, considerable ambiguity surrounds the EU’s ability to neutralise what Germany described as "terrorist attacks on the freedom of the sea lanes."

Recent events put the EU's maritime constraints into stark perspective. The Houthis appear in no mood to relinquish their military operations in the Red Sea, and the mission was announced on the very day when the group claimed a major attack on the British-owned ship, the MV Rubymar. The move was a sign of undeterred aggression and defiance toward naval coalitions in the Red Sea.

The Houthis also see retaliatory fire as due cause for sustaining attacks, and have increased internal recruitment and weapons procurement amid trade disruptions.

Though the EU said its naval mission will focus specifically on intercepting attacks and will not participate in any land strikes, "continuous military to military" coordination with the US could turn EU ships into a target.

"The Americans, the British and those who coordinated with them must realise the power of the sovereign Yemeni decision (to continue attacks) and that there is no debate or dispute over it," threatened Houthi commander Mohamed al Atifi last month.

The Aspides vessels will also enter the waters at a time when Washington is on the offensive against the Houthis. US forces recently struck an undersea drone in five "self-defence strikes" against the Houthis.

Washington has also deployed jets and firing missiles to aid current and future strikes. All this could complicate the EU’s hopes of establishing a distinct standard of "European defence" that doesn’t involve any participation in land strikes.

Thus, a year-long EU naval mission may not be enough to put the union's Red Sea headaches to rest. Global shipping disruptions are likely to intensify as long as American forces, their naval coalition and Houthis continue to engage in extensive aggression.

In a series of recent strikes against Houthi anti-ship cruise missiles and vessels, US Central Command made clear that it was acting against "an imminent" Houthi threat to US Navy ships and merchant vessels in the region.

Now, Houthis face new pressure to respond, and have developed a metanarrative against the West to mobilise and further consolidate their fighter base.

By ignoring these underlying conflict dynamics, the EU naval mission takes a gamble at deterrence in the Red Sea. So far, greater militarisation of the global trade artery has failed to assure the international shipping industry – a critical EU priority – that it is out of the throes of disruption.

Make no mistake: the path to restoring peace in the Red Sea runs through Gaza. Israel’s genocide against Palestinians helped the Houthis galvanise massive support for shipping attacks, and Western resistance to an effective ceasefire sustains that momentum to this day.

The Iran-allied group insist that their attacks will continue until Israel’s onslaught on Gaza is brought to a stop, and when besieged Palestinians have access to aid.

The EU would have been well-advised to press its diplomatic and financial leverage over Israel for a ceasefire, rather than resort to a naval protection mission. The former approach would have allowed the European bloc to at least test the Houthis without their principal demand at play.

But instead, staunch supporters of Israel – such as Germany – prevent the EU from acting against the Gaza onslaught, a root cause of instability in the Red Sea.

If an expanded naval presence was any guarantor of stability and deterrence, peace should have prevailed months ago.