The US Navy’s recent deployment in the Red Sea has underscored a troubling pattern: operational strain, costly mishaps, and the fragility of military endurance under pressure. This was brought into sharp relief by the loss of three fighter jets from the USS Harry S. Truman over just a few months—accidents that have raised serious questions about pilot fatigue and the sustainability of extended tours. Against this backdrop, President Donald Trump’s administration has negotiated a surprise ceasefire with Yemen’s Houthi rebels, aiming to halt attacks on shipping in exchange for a suspension of US strikes. But while the deal guarantees freedom of navigation for American ships, it leaves Israel exposed to continued missile and drone assaults—a stark sign of shifting US priorities in the region.

The arrangement, brokered through Oman with Iranian input, signals a recalibration of Washington’s Middle East posture. It secures immediate US interests in the Red Sea but underscores an unsettling reality for Israel: American protection is no longer automatic, and allies may have to shoulder more of their own security burdens.

Naval Setbacks: The USS Truman’s Costly Months

The Red Sea deployment of the USS Harry S. Truman began with high expectations but quickly descended into a saga of mishaps. First came the loss of an F/A-18F Super Hornet, which crashed during a landing attempt after failing to catch an arresting wire on the flight deck. The jet plunged into the sea—an incident chalked up to mechanical trouble exacerbated by rough seas. No lives were lost, but the $67 million fighter was unrecoverable.

Then came another mishap: an F/A-18E Super Hornet was accidentally towed overboard along with its tractor after an apparent loss of control in the hangar bay. Though rare, such a ground handling accident points to deeper systemic issues. Soon after, a third incident rocked the Navy’s confidence—an F/A-18F was mistakenly shot down by a US Navy cruiser during a tense period of operations, underscoring the high-stakes environment of the region.

The Ceasefire: Protecting Shipping, Not Israel

The breakthrough came in early May, when Oman, acting as a quiet mediator, announced a ceasefire between the US and the Houthis. Under its terms, the Houthis agreed to halt attacks on shipping lanes in the Red Sea, ensuring freedom of navigation—a core American priority. In return, the US pledged to cease its bombing campaign in Yemen.

Freedom of navigation is a foundational concept in maritime law, guaranteeing the unimpeded passage of ships through international waters. For the US, which depends on secure sea lanes to project power and protect global commerce, keeping the Red Sea safe is non-negotiable. The Bab el-Mandeb strait and the broader Red Sea corridor are vital arteries linking Europe, Asia, and Africa, and the recent Houthi attacks had imperiled oil shipments and commercial trade.

Trump’s Calculation: America First, Israel Second

Why would Trump accept such an arrangement? The answer lies in his administration’s transactional approach to foreign policy. By halting Houthi attacks on shipping, Trump achieved a clear-cut victory that protects American interests—saving lives, shielding global commerce, and relieving the pressure on overstretched naval forces.

At the same time, Trump appears willing to compartmentalize Israel’s security needs. His decision reflects a pragmatic calculation: the Houthis’ fight against Israel, while troubling, does not directly threaten American assets. By disentangling US forces from the Israel-Houthi conflict, Trump has drawn a line between what America is prepared to fight for and what it is not.

Israel’s Alarm and Retaliation

For Israel, the ceasefire was a wake-up call. With the US stepping back, Israel swiftly retaliated against the Houthis following renewed missile attacks. The Israeli Air Force struck Houthi targets in Sanaa and Hodeidah, signaling its intent to confront the Yemeni rebels head-on. Israeli officials voiced concern that Washington’s new posture might embolden Iran’s proxies, seeing in the ceasefire a dangerous precedent.

Gulf Arab States: Relief and Quiet Endorsement

The Gulf Arab monarchies, by contrast, have welcomed the ceasefire. For countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt, the primary concern has been safeguarding maritime security and stabilizing the region’s trade routes. Trump’s symbolic renaming of the Persian Gulf to the “Arabian Gulf” during his Gulf visit has further solidified goodwill among Gulf leaders. This gesture, while largely symbolic, carries deep geopolitical meaning.

Iran’s Response: Mixed Feelings

Iran has watched these developments with cautious optimism. On one hand, the Houthis’ freedom to continue striking Israel serves Tehran’s interests well. On the other hand, Trump’s renaming of the Persian Gulf and overt alignment with Arab states is viewed in Tehran as an antagonistic gesture.

A Strategic Shift?

The ceasefire and the broader diplomatic choreography suggest a subtle pivot in US Middle East policy. Trump’s administration appears to be prioritizing core American interests over open-ended military commitments to allies. This shift places greater responsibility on regional actors to manage their own security challenges. Trump’s maneuvers in the Red Sea have shown that in 2025, the US is still engaged in the Middle East—but on its own terms.