‘Precise strikes’ on Houthi rebels are ‘necessary’ to remove threats to world supplies, says ex head of British Army

PRECISE strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen are "necessary" to remove the threats to global trade, an ex-British army chief has declared.

Explosions rang out across Yemen last night as the UK and US struck 60 Houthi targets in 16 locations in response to their Red Sea attacks.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said they acted in "self-defence" after the Iran-backed militia group vowed America and Britain will "pay a heavy price" for their "blatant aggression".

General Richard Dannatt insisted the PM was right in saying the response is "necessary action".

The former top brass told TalkTV: "One hopes very much that it's intelligence-led, intelligence of pretty high quality, so that the targets that are being struck by UK and US forces are precisely targeted against Houthi installations in order to restrict and reduce and hopefully remove the threats to international shipping transiting the Red Sea."

Lord Dannatt added: "Someone has to salute the courage and the bravery of British servicemen and women once again, who are willing to take action on behalf of UK interests and the national interests.

"They are risking their lives in carrying out these operations. So one salutes their courage."

In a separate interview with the BBC, Lord Dannatt highlighted how the "fragility of world chains of supply are being exposed by what's going on in the Red Sea", adding: "It does make sense that action is taken to ensure that world trade can continue."

The action taken last night marked the first time strikes have been launched against the group since it started targeting international shipping in the Red Sea late last year.

US President Joe Biden described the blitz on sites used by the Iran-backed militia group as aa "success" and said he would "not hesitate" to launch more.

More than 100 precision-guided munitions were used to hit Yemen's capital Sanaa as well as Hudaydah, the Houthi Red Sea port stronghold, and other locations.

Warship-launched Tomahawk missiles and fighter jets were used during the strikes, the US said.

The US and UK said the attacks were intended to disrupt and degrade the militants' threat to global trade following weeks of drone and missile attacks on cargo ships in the region.

Armed Forces Minister James Heappey told Times Radio this morning direction action against Iran has not been considered but added: "It is definitely the case that Iranian ally groupings across the Middle East have been very active over the last two months."

He said the UK and Western allies have been "very clear throughout that this must not escalate into a regional conflict".

Houthi spokesman Nasr Aldeen Amer told Sky News his group would respond.

"A brutal aggression against our country, for which they [the attackers] will pay absolutely and without hesitation, and we will not back down from our position in supporting the Palestinian people, whatever the cost," he said. 

Strikes were carried out with the support of Australia, Bahrain, Canada, and the Netherlands, US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin confirmed.

Denmark, Germany, New Zealand and South Korea also assisted.

The US and Britain both said the group faced “consequences” for unleashing 18 drones and three missiles at a Royal Navy warship and nearby merchant vessels on Tuesday.

The plans were finalised yesterday following meetings of the Prime Minister's National Security Council and the emergency committee Cobra.

Foreign Secretary Lord David Cameron attended and other top UK politicians, including opposition leader Sir Keir Starmer, were briefed ahead of the military action.

Sir Keir said he supports the targeted strikes but called for a statement in Parliament “at the first opportunity”.

The Labour leader, told the BBC: "Clearly the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea have to be dealt with, their attacks on commercial shipping, attacks on important trade routes and putting civilian lives at risk and therefore, we do support this action. 

“I do think there needs to be a statement in Parliament, which isn’t sitting today so it’s for the Government to make sure there’s a statement in Parliament as soon as possible at the first opportunity, to set out the justification, to set out the limits and scope of the operation. 

“I also want to see a summary of the Government’s legal position published as soon as possible, and I would hope that that can be published today.”

Meanwhile, the Lib Dems have demanded a retrospective vote on the military action, with Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Layla Moran saying "Parliament should not be bypassed".

She said: "Rishi Sunak must announce a retrospective vote in the House of Commons on this strikes and recall Parliament this weekend."

With the Commons having finished business for the week and the Prime Minister having no plans to recall Parliament, MPs will not be able to debate the military intervention until Monday.

Parliament cannot be recalled without the Government asking the Commons Speaker to do so, and such requests are rare.

The last time it was recalled happened in August 2021 following the fall of Kabul to the Taliban.

The Prime Minister has the ability to conduct military strikes without the explicit approval of Parliament due to the royal prerogative powers.

They allow the Government to act swiftly in situations where national security is at stake or where quick decision-making is crucial.

This does not mean that the Prime Minister can act completely without oversight or consequence as Parliament can still express its disapproval through motions or votes of no confidence.

In recent years, there has been a growing convention that MPs should be consulted on significant military actions.

Votes were held in the cases of the Iraq War in 2003 and proposed strikes against Syria in 2013 but these are conventions rather than legal requirements.

The PM is today making a surprise visit to Ukraine to meet Volodymyr Zelensky, as the UK announced it will provide £2.5 billion in military aid to the country over the coming year.