The Houthis, less commonly known as the Ansarullah Movement, represent a striking case of a local uprising in northern Yemen evolving into a regional geopolitical actor. Rooted in a Zaydi-Shia identity, the group launched an armed resistance against the central government in the early 2000s, seized the capital in 2014, and, by 2023, had emerged on the international agenda through direct attacks targeting Israel and the United States.
The movement’s ascent lies at the intersection of Iran’s regional proxy strategy and the Gulf-led security architecture shaped by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. As such, the Houthis are the product of both localized sociopolitical dynamics and external geopolitical instrumentalization. They are neither entirely autonomous nor completely directed by external powers. Rather, they represent a hybrid political entity shaped by a combination of internal imperatives and regional entanglements.
The Houthi movement originated in Yemen’s northern Sa’dah governorate, where it was shaped by the longstanding marginalization of the Zaydi-Shia population. Zaydism is a branch of Shia Islam that emerged in the eighth century and is doctrinally distinct from Twelver Shiism, which predominates in Iran. Unlike the Iranian model, Zaydism does not uphold the doctrine of infallible Imams or the concept of absolute clerical authority. It emphasizes political activism and a more decentralized religious structure, making it more adaptable to local political conditions.
What began in the 1990s as a cultural and religious awakening called “The Young Believers” evolved into an armed uprising by 2004. This transformation was fueled both by internal theological fractures and by the destabilizing effects of centralization policies on Yemen’s tribal order. The movement’s political identity has developed along three principal lines: sectarian belonging, a demand for local autonomy and a rejection of foreign intervention. In this context, Zaydism has served not only as a religious foundation but also as a resource for political legitimacy.
After taking control of the capital, Sanaa, in 2014, the Houthis established administrative control over fundamental state functions. Security, taxation, judiciary and education were brought under their authority. Today, the Houthis hold de facto power across much of Yemen’s most populous regions. Rather than remaining a conventional insurgent force, they have gradually assumed the characteristics of an armed political entity with a tangible capacity for governance and state-building.
The ideological framework of the Houthis has developed through a political construction process that goes beyond the boundaries of traditional Zaydi doctrine. The Houthis have reinterpreted this heritage through a revolutionary lens, blending it with Iran-oriented Shia resistance discourse and producing a hybrid ideological structure.
Three core concepts form the backbone of the movement’s worldview: independence (istiqlāl), sovereignty (siyāda) and justice (ʿadāla). These ideas underpin demands for removing foreign influence from Yemen, for a campaign against corruption and restoring meaningful political representation. The Houthis present themselves not merely as a religious force but as a movement committed to political and socio-economic reform. Politically, the group seeks to serve as an alternative to the central state. During the U.N.-led National Dialogue Conference, the Houthis rejected proposals for a federal system, arguing that dividing Yemen into six regions would further marginalize the Zaydi population in the north.
After 2015, the movement began to articulate its positions with greater assertiveness. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were no longer framed solely as external actors, but as entities actively undermining Yemen’s internal sovereignty. In response, the Houthis sought to legitimize their governance model to restore national dignity. The Houthi political project does not reflect a conventional ambition to establish a sectarian theocracy. Instead, it advances an alternative model that combines armed resistance, social equality, collective sovereignty in the face of foreign intervention, and a commitment to moral governance.
The relationship between Iran and the Houthis is often framed within the paradigm of “proxy warfare,” yet this characterization is both conceptually inadequate and empirically insufficient. While Iran’s support has significantly enhanced the Houthis’ technical and military capabilities, it has not rendered the Houthis a fully controllable instrument. Rather than a classical proxy relationship, their ties reflect a form of strategic convergence shaped by asymmetrical but complementary interests.
Iran provides direct military support to the Houthis. Since 2015, the emergence of Burkan-1 ballistic missiles, Quds cruise missiles and Samad-series drones in Houthi arsenals has reflected clear technological links to Iranian systems. These weapons have not only been employed within the context of Yemen’s civil war but have also been used in long-range attacks on Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, as well as in maritime operations in the Red Sea. Iran’s motivation in enabling this capacity lies in its aim to apply sustained pressure on Saudi Arabia’s southern frontier and to impose greater costs on the Gulf security architecture.
Equally important as the level of military assistance is the degree of influence exerted. Unlike other Iran-backed groups such as Hezbollah or Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), the Houthis retain substantial autonomy in political decision-making. For example, the 2014 decision to seize Sanaa was not initiated with Iranian backing, though Tehran accepted the outcome once it had materialized. Similarly, the Houthis’ missile and drone attacks on Israel in the wake of the 2023 Gaza war were not coordinated in lockstep with Iran but appear to have proceeded according to their own strategic calculations.
At the ideological level, despite sharing overlapping rhetorical spaces, the two actors do not operate on the same political-theological foundation. Iran’s political model is based on the "Velayat-e Faqih" doctrine and functions as a centralized theocratic republic. The Houthis, however, have not imported this model into Yemen. Instead, they have pragmatically adapted traditional Zaydi doctrine to fit a revolutionary narrative, without embracing a clerical hierarchy or the concept of absolute religious authority.
What makes the Iran-Houthi relationship distinctive is mutual instrumentalization. Iran sees the Houthis not only as a proxy force but as a strategic node for projecting the “Axis of Resistance” narrative into the Arabian Peninsula. Conversely, the Houthis regard Iran not only as a source of material support but also as a reference point from which to derive legitimacy in opposition to the global order. In short, the Iran-Houthi relationship is not one of unilateral control but rather a multilayered partnership characterized by moments of convergence and tension. Iranian support is not the foundation of the Houthis’ existence but it is a force multiplier for their regional impact.
The Houthis’ direct attacks on Israel and the U.S. following 2023 marked a significant shift, positioning the movement not only as a domestic actor in Yemen but also as a relevant force within regional and global security frameworks. Although these attacks are often interpreted through the lenses of ideological radicalism or Iranian influence, they are more accurately understood as part of the Houthis’ multilayered strategic calculus.
The strikes against Israel cannot be explained solely by religious or moral reflexes. In the aftermath of the Gaza war that began on Oct. 7, 2023, the Houthis launched ballistic missiles and drones toward Israeli targets. These actions served two purposes: reinforcing the Houthis’ standing within the so-called Axis of Resistance and enhancing their legitimacy among Arab public opinion. Through these operations, the movement sought not only to demonstrate solidarity with the Palestinians but also to portray itself as the only Arab actor capable of taking effective military action.
The attacks on the U.S., by contrast, were based on a more direct strategic rationale. The critical role played by American logistics, munitions and intelligence in the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen positioned the U.S. as a de facto party to the conflict in the eyes of the Houthis. Their operations against American naval vessels in the Red Sea were intended not only to signal deterrence but also to showcase their technological and operational capabilities.
One of the most important functions of these attacks is demonstrating the Houthis’ ability to use asymmetric warfare tools as bargaining instruments in regional strategic negotiations. Disrupting commercial maritime traffic through the Red Sea is not merely an act of aggression; it is also a means of exerting economic and diplomatic pressure on adversaries. However, this strategy also reveals its limitations. Israel’s announcement that it would directly target senior Houthi leaders, the U.S.’s large-scale airstrikes against Houthi infrastructure, and the establishment of international naval coalitions have begun to constrain the Houthis’ room for maneuver.
The Houthis emerged from the internal fractures of Yemeni politics, yet over time, they have evolved into a central force within the broader regional security architecture. The Ansarullah Movement now stands as a critical case for understanding how non-state actors in the Middle East transform into entities capable of both internal institutionalization and external military projection. The group’s relationship with Iran has served both as an accelerant and as a constraint. It is unlikely that the Houthis could have developed such a robust military and technological capacity without Iranian support, but that support has not resulted in total control. The Houthis act in strategic alignment with Iran while maintaining their own priorities and autonomous decision-making structures.
The attacks on Israel and the U.S. have expanded the group’s regional visibility, integrating the Houthis into the evolving security order spanning from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Red Sea. Today, Ansarullah has moved beyond the confines of local Yemeni politics to become a hybrid actor with state-like attributes. It is a force that challenges not only the status quo within Yemen but also the regional order as a whole.
