Cargo ship Tutor believed to have sunk in Red Sea after Houthi attack

Photo shows the M/V Tutor sinking after it was struck by a Houthi unmanned vessel on Wednesday, June 12, 2024.

A cargo ship has sunk in the Red Sea a week after it was damaged in a deadly sea drone attack by Yemen’s Houthi movement, British maritime authorities and salvagers say. The Tutor, a Liberian-flagged, Greek-owned bulk carrier, was hit on the stern by an explosive-filled uncrewed surface vessel (USV). The attack killed a crew member from the Philippines who was initially reported missing, according to the US.

The Tutor is believed to be the second ship sunk by the Iran-backed Houthis since they began attacking merchant vessels in the region in November. It was also the second fatal attack over the same period. The Houthis, who control much of north-western Yemen, say their attacks are a show of support for the Palestinians in the war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. They have claimed – often falsely – that they are targeting ships only linked to Israel, the US or the UK.

US and European warships have been deployed to the critical waterway since December as part of an international task force to protect commercial shipping in the crucial waterway. The US and UK have also carried out air and missile strikes on what they say are Houthi military targets in Yemen since January, but so far the Houthis have not been deterred.

Here it comes!

The Tutor had reportedly just completed a port call in Russia and was bound for Egypt when it was hit by a USV last Wednesday, about 66 nautical miles (122km) south-west of the Houthi-controlled Yemeni port of Hudaydah. The cargo ship started slowly taking on water after the attack, which the US military’s Central Command said resulted in severe flooding and damage to the engine room. One member of the 22-strong Filipino crew believed to have been working in the engine room was reported missing, while the rest of the crew abandoned ship and were rescued by a US Navy helicopter and warship.

Houthi military spokesman Yahya Sarea claimed at the time that the Tutor was “destroyed” following an attack by “a drone boat and a number of ballistic missiles and drones”, which he said was “dedicated to the mujahideen in Gaza”. White House national security spokesman John Kirby told reporters on Monday that the missing crew member was killed, although there has been no confirmation from the Philippines government.

Comment: The M/V Tutor was struck by both marine drones and missiles. I saw a video of a marine drone striking the ship in the engine room. Hell of an explosion. The bridge crew saw it coming. A second explosion hit amidships. I wonder if our ships and/or aircraft were at least monitoring the attack, even if they couldn’t do anything about it. I thought we would have greatly reduced the Houthi threat to shipping by this time, but it doesn’t appear to be going in the right direction. We would never deter them, but I thought we’d reduce their capability by now.

Maybe we should be organizing escorted convoys so we can see the attacks coming. I don’t know if we have the ships and aircraft to do this efficiently or if international shipping would go along with it, But I would think our larger drones could at least provide close surveillance over the convoys.

Another idea is to conduct much closer surveillance over possible Houthi launch areas. I know we lost at least two of our large, expensive drones doing that, but why not add maritime and ground surveillance. Later in my time in 10th SFG(A), we had a new mission, strategic intelligence collection and target acquisition (SICTA). We would infiltrate in small teams, dig hides overnight, observe and report. We weren’t thrilled with the mission. Who wants to live in a hole in the ground for days or weeks at a time? Perhaps smaller drones would increase the effectiveness of these SICTA missions. But I doubt we have the stomach for this on the national level.


This entry was posted in Messing about in boats, The Military Art, TTG, Yemen. Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to Cargo ship Tutor believed to have sunk in Red Sea after Houthi attack

  1. mcohen says:

    Was going from Russia to Egypt with …………

    • TTG says:

      She was a bulk carrier, good chance it was grain.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        So much for the clarity of the pro-Houthi propaganda that says they are merely fighting evil Jew injustice in Palestine. Seems they are becoming more of an equal opportunity piracy/terrorist operation. A Greek ship, killed a Filipino crewman (who might have been a Muslim), en route to Egypt (food for Muslims, maybe even Palestinians in Gaza).

        Why anyone allows themself to be gas lighted by the rhetoric of such born-liar savages completely escapes me. More of that Rousseau silliness coupled with self-flagellation, I suppose.

    • Fred says:


      How dare you notice “Russia Russia Russia “. Somebody might look at a map and ask which port in Russia they left. Looks like a really lonnnnng trip for a Greek (who’s side are the owners on) ship flying Liberia’ s flag.


      When is the Liberian navy showing up to protect their merchant ships?

      • TTG says:


        Seemed odd to me, too. But several maritime sources say the ship originated in Russia carrying Russian cargo to Egypt.

        Liberian registration is like being incorporated in Delaware. It’s cheap and easy, a paperwork drill.

        • Mark Logan says:

          Minor FYI,

          According to Tradewinds, the ship was a coal carrier, left with a load of Russian coal from Ust-Luga Russia on May 18, discharged at Port Said Egypt on June 6, and bound for India when attacked about 70 miles SW of Yemen.

          Some reports say she was bound for Aqaba Jordon but getting from Pt Said to Aqaba by way of 70 miles SW of Yemen (where she was hit) would be odd to say the least.

        • Yeah, Right says:

          The location of the attack (“66 nautical miles (122km) south-west of the Houthi-controlled Yemeni port of Hudaydah”) makes the claim that it was sailing from Russia to Egypt …. unlikely, to say the least.

          As in: ” 66 nautical miles (122km) south-west of the Houthi-controlled Yemeni port of Hudaydah” places it some 500 nautical miles south of the nearest Egyptian landfall, and about 1,000 nautical miles south of Port Said.

        • Fred says:


          Liberia is not a state in our union. It’s done for lots of reasons, none good for US.

    • Yeah, Right says:

      Out of curiosity, because I genuinely do now know the answer: did the good ship Tutor attempt to sail through the Red Sea while broadcasting the AIS code “VL NO CONTACT ISRAEL”?

      If they did then the attack is inexcusable.
      If they didn’t then they were being reckless with the lives of the crew.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        You are, as usual, a terrorist apologist. It could be the crew’s fault they were hit and sunk because maybe they didn’t clearly explain to the terrorists that they weren’t affiliated in any way with Israel or the US? Really? That’s the world you want to live in?

        • Yeah, Right says:

          I’m not talking about the crew, but the owners.

          Eric, this is a war zone. The Houthis have made no secret of their war aims: they are imposing a naval blockade on shipping to and from Israel.

          That is a PERFECTLY legitimate war aim, and a belligerent is PERFECTLY entitled to declare such a naval blockade and to enforce such a blockade.

          PERFECTLY legal according to the laws of war, and imposing such a naval blockade is in no way, shape or form a “terrorist act”.

          After all, the IDF imposed a naval blockade off the coast of Lebanon in 2006, did they not?

          Now, so very sorry if this upsets your sensitivities, but when a belligerent power imposes a naval blockade then, indeed, there is an obligation placed upon neutrals to signal their neutrality.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          Ridiculous sophistry, but…..
          ….then Israel or the US carpet bombing them is also a legitimate act of war, since it is a war according to you. It would be up to true civilians to identify themselves as such or to flee to the hills.

          Also, Israel blockading Gaza or Yemen would be a legitimate act of war by your reasoning. So I don’t understand why such things outrage you so much.

          As I’ve been saying lately, none of you outraged people are for peace. You’re all just closet war mongers. You just want your favorite guys to kill the guys you don’t like, who are usually the superior force, which makes you mad. Though you like to posture as if morally superior.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            “Ridiculous sophistry, but…..”

            Pardon? Eric, the Houthi are at war with Israel over what the IDF is doing to the population of Gaza.

            Do you deny that? Really?

            Well, so sorry, but if the Houthi are in an armed conflict with Israel – and they are, Eric – then the Rules of War apply to their conduct.

            And…. they have scrupulously complied with the laws of war.

            They have declared a naval blockade of Israeli goods, they have defined the extent of that blockade, and they have defined the duration of that blockade.

            They have also applied that blockade equally to all shipping destined to/from Israeli ports or carrying Israeli goods (as they are required to do) and they have declared that shipping that isn’t destined to/from Israeli ports and/or isn’t carrying Israeli contraband is free to travel through that blockade zone (again, as they are required to do).

            They have given fair warning within the plain meaning of the San Remo Manual of the Laws of War at Sea, and they have EXPLICITLY and REPEATEDLY stated what neutral vessels need to do to claim their right of free passage through the Red Sea i.e. broadcast this message on their AIS system: “VL NO CONTACT ISRAEL”.

            That you call that “sophistry” is, honestly, beyond belief. It does, indeed, beggar the imagination.

            The Houthis have done this entirely by the book. They have taken great pains to cross their “T’s” and dot their “I’s”.

            They have done all that is required of them by the Laws of War, and that *you* can’t comprehend that says much more about *you* than it does about *them*

          • Yeah, Right says:

            “then Israel or the US carpet bombing them is also a legitimate act of war, since it is a war according to you.”

            Such carpet bombing would violate both the principle of distinction and the principal of proportionality.

            So, no, not legitimate at all.

            You really do have some funny ideas in that head of yours, Eric.

            “It would be up to true civilians to identify themselves as such or to flee to the hills.”

            “True civilians” on land are not required to comply with the Rules of War that pertain to a naval blockade, Eric.

            Why on Earth would you think otherwise?

            You really don’t know much about topics that you give us the very dubious pleasure of your opinion.

            What the Houthis have done is to declare a naval blockade.

            Belligerents in an armed conflict are perfectly entitled to declare a naval blockade of the enemy’s ports provided – as anyone would expect – they conduct that naval blockade in compliance with the Rules of War as they are defined in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea .

            Would you like me to provide you with a copy, Eric, since it is clear you have never read it.

            Eric: “then Israel or the US carpet bombing”… is outside the scope of the Laws of War that pertain to naval blockades, so I have NO IDEA why you raise that as some bizarro-world attempt at moral equivalence.

            Eric: “It would be up to true civilians to identify themselves as such”

            No, actually, it wouldn’t, because civilians living in their homes are not a subject that is covered by the San Remo Manual which (did I mention this? I think I did) pertains to Armed Conflicts At Sea.

            Again, you are attempting a most bizarre claim to moral equivalence where none exists.

            Eric: “Also, Israel blockading Gaza or Yemen would be a legitimate act of war by your reasoning.”

            OK, now you are on MUCH firmer ground.

            Indeed, I agree: Israel can impose a naval blockade on Gaza and on Yemen.

            Provided, of course, that they comply with the Laws of War that are defined in the San Remo Manual.

            When does Israel plan to start complying, Eric?

            “So I don’t understand why such things outrage you so much.”

            !!!!!!! I expressed no “outrage” at the Houthi naval blockade of the Red Sea, Eric. I personally think they are well within their rights to do so, and have conducted themselves with commendable restraint.

            As for the IDF’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip, well, they are actually attacking Gaza fishing boats. Something that is not at all compliant with the San Remo Manual.

            But, heh, sophistry, am I right?

          • Eric Newhill says:

            San Remo Manual of the Laws of War at Sea?


            Ok, that is some fairly decent trolling on your part – and yes it is sophistry. The manual is not binding on states and you know that.

            Btw – the Houthis are not the recognized government of Yemen. They are internationally viewed as rebel group that happened to seize the capitol in the midst of a civil war. A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. So the Houthis cannot legally declare war on other nations, but you know that too.

            If you actually believe your own trolling, it would be a strange a dark world for which you advocate. Any group of bandits, terrorists, pirates or rebels could “legally” all manner of atrocities simply by pronouncing that they are the true government and, even if that claim is disputed, they could declare “war” on anyone they want to.

            I don’t understand why you are so desperate to make the Houthis out to be something other than terrorists and/or pirates. Why the drive to cover them with legitimacy? I think it’s because you enjoy promoting chaos and violence aimed at the western world order.

            Have the Houthis released the UN aide workers they took hostage and have held for a couple years? Why did they kidnap those people? Did their flight stop over in Israel or something?

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Eric: “The manual is not binding on states and you know that.”

            Did someone mention sophistry?

            Eric appears to be unaware that International Law is comprised of two parts: International Treaty Law and International Customary Law.

            What the San Rem Manual aims to be – and is universally acknowledged to be – is a compendium of the International CUSTOMARY Laws that pertain to Conflicts at Sea.

            I know of not one single State on the face of Planet Earth that disputes that the San Remo Manual is an accurate and authoritative statement of those International CUSTOMARY Laws.

            Certainly not the dinky little colonial-expansionist state located on the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea, which based its entire defense of its lethal attack on the MV Mavi Marmara on their claimed compliance with the San Remo Manual.

            So the Israelis insist that they comply with the San Remo Manual, even though Eric pooh-poohs the very idea that anyone would give it the time of day.

            How odd. Who to believe? Who to believe?

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            The San Remo manual is just that… a manual. As Eric Newhill states, it is not binding law. It does generally restate what is in international law and is useful in that regard.

            That manual calls for capturing merchant vessels breaching a blockade and not attacking them without prior warning. Many, even most, of the Houthi attacks are carried out without warning. Granted they don’t have the capability to capture all those merchant vessels, but they can warn them of an impending attack. It is not the responsibility of the merchant vessel to do the Houthi’s intelligence work. So your position that this manual gives the Houthis license to do what ever they want is pure horseshit.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Eric: “Btw – the Houthis are not the recognized government of Yemen.”

            Makes no difference, Eric. The humanitarian laws pertaining to naval blockade are part of International CUSTOMARY Law, and therefore apply to any combatant in any armed conflict.

            Eric: “They are internationally viewed as rebel group that happened to seize the capitol in the midst of a civil war.”

            Again, a distinction without a difference when dealing with humanitarian law during an armed conflict: the articles of the San Remo Manual apply to “legitimate” and “rebel” armed forces alike.

            Eric: “A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another.”

            That’s splendidly 1939 of you, Eric. You do know that formal declarations of war no longer define whether – or not – “a state of war exists”?

            Apparently not.

            That all got thrown out of the window in 1945, when the UN Charter was adopted.

            This is news to you, is it, Eric?

            Add that Charter to your reading list, which is growing ever longer. You’ve got some work ahead of you.

            Eric: “So the Houthis cannot legally declare war on other nations, but you know that too.”

            A question for you, Eric: how many formal declarations of war have been issued by the USA, or the UK, or France, or anyone else since 1945?

            You are banging on about a legal regime that was completely done away with in 1945 which, to be honest, is not a surprise to me.

  2. mcohen says:

    A warning to all shipping

    Anyway if you think you can survive the missiles, you might want to develop a taste for fried bat and learn how to eat it with chop sticks

  3. Eric Newhill says:

    The US lacks the resolve to put an end to this nonsense. The Houthis should be carpet bombed into oblivion, blood thirsty savages that they are. They’ve caused the deaths of countless Yemenis and they call for the destruction of the US and Israel. It’s even on their flag, which is totally retarded and backwards as hell, but, hey, gotta respect those natives, because no racism allowed and the US has done a bad thing here and there too, dontcha know (or some stupid crap like that).

    Oops did I say “savages” again? Well I’m sure a bunch of women, one hand on hip and the other wagging a finger now will tell me how awful I am. Such women are why the US lacks resolve. They believe the US and Israel actually should be destroyed, even if it’s by becoming some kind of Ghandi-esque blissed out love everyone equally global Mother Teresa…. and ….my god!…..what about the children that might die in a carpet bombing?!?!?! Children who are obviously more important than all the children starving to death under Houthi control of the country – though I’m sure via mental gymnastics it can be “proved” the US and Israel are somehow responsible for even those deaths. Why we should be sending the Houthis aid, not bombs!!!!!

    F’ing tools.

    Anyhow, “Another idea is to conduct much closer surveillance over possible Houthi launch areas.” Yeah. No kidding. Trump’s last year or so in office we had special operations teams in Yemen doing all kinds of surveillance (SEALs especially, but others as well). Under the ever-on-the-ball-Biden, not so much.

    • TTG says:

      Eric Newhill,

      Carpet bombing would not be effective, although it might make you feel better. Think of Monte Casino. The green devils held out in the bombed out ruins for months after several mass bombardments and ground assaults. The Houthis with their missiles and drones will do the same in the hills and caves of Yemen.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        I was thinking of carpet bombing the regular Houthi forces in their cities and encampments simply as punishment. Perhaps they would learn that if they stop attacking shipping, the bombing would stop and they could return to their regularly programmed terrorizing of the Yemeni population – a Pavlovian carrot and stick approach. And yes, it would make me feel better.

        Point taken about the actual missile and drone sites. That is work for special operations. Surveillance missions identify launch sites and operators point a laser into the cave and a US drone or Saudi jet sends a missile into the cave. I think Biden is too chicken over the possibility of operators being killed or – especially – captured and filmed being beheaded [by savages] on video – not good in an election year.

        • TTG says:

          Eric Newhill,

          I bet the Houthis would view such punishment as a badge of honor and as a way to consolidate internal and external support just as Hamas views the killing of Gaza Palestinians by Israel. Like Hamas, the Houthis may be counting on such a bombing campaign to push their agenda.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            You are probably right about that (badge of honor). Of course if enough of them are killed, and their ability to openly control the country is degraded, they may still be forced into compliance.

            With regards to external support, the US needs to spin up information operations to counter Houthi, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood and Iranian propaganda. Iran is the Houthi’s ally. That can’t be impacted, but pretty much no one else likes the Houthis and that trend will deepen as the Houthis destroy more shipping unrelated to Israel or the US. So by their own actions they become more vulnerable to a counter IO.

      • John Minehan says:

        For carpet bombing to work, you really need something to bomb,

        I don’t say this to insult Yemen or its people, but, there are not many targets. In fact, the part of Yemen where the Houthis are operating from mainly has “wasteland.” (In part, that is why they are operating from there.)

        This probably needs latter day “Whiz Kids” the USAAF analysts who used advanced statistical methods to figure out where the :Wolfpack subs were going to be in the Atlantic in WWII..

        • Eric Newhill says:

          I’ve seen good sized military parades (I guess that’s what you’d call them) in cities like Sana’a. You know the usual display of savages in sun glasses and various colored berets, Generals with all kinds of dubious chest bling, whooping it up, shooting weapons in the air, proudly driving their technicals through the center of town, burning flags and effigies of Israelis and Uncle Sam. Seems like a good time and place to create some contiguous cratering to me.

          Also, I cannot believe that satellite imaging + radar doesn’t show us exactly where the launch sites for drone attack boats and missiles are. IMO, this all translates into Biden being a giant p***y – or his admin, that is. Biden doesn’t know where is, let alone anything about this.

    • Fred says:


      Sounds a little bloodthirsty to me. Maybe the former colonial masters can unscrew the mess they made themselves. It is Europe who is in trouble, not us. We should wash our hands of the whole thing and sail our ships home. Let the EU fight for their trade routes.

      • TTG says:


        It is far more an EU-Asia trade route problem. China doesn’t seem too concerned about the Houthis disrupting their trade with the EU which is considerable. Isn’t that the goal of the Belt and Road Initiative? Or are they hoping the Houthis will force the road part of that initiative on the world?

        • Fred says:


          It isn’t China’s ships being targeted. Oil flows to them haven’t stopped either. When sales – FOB China – start going down they might show some concern. The EU is the one with the problem. Even the Egyptians, since Suez Canal revenue is important to them. Insurers in London have to be concerned too.

        • Yeah, Right says:

          Ships carrying Chinese goods to-and-from Europe are required by the Chinese to broadcast this AIS message: “VL NO CONTACT ISRAEL”.

          If a shipping company isn’t willing to comply with that stipulation then the Chinese won’t use those ships.

          But that broadcast signals the neutrality of that vessel, and the Houthi have committed themselves to avoiding attacks on vessels braodcasting that AIS message.

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            The Chinese owned and operated oil tanker MV Huang Pu was struck by a Houthi missile back in March, although it probably was a case of out of date intelligence.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Look, I’ll give the same answer to you that I have given to Eric’s nonsense: the Houthi have declared a naval blockade of goods destined to/from Israel.

            That declaration has been made of all to see, and the Houthi are not only ENTITLED to make that declaration under the Laws of War, they are OBLIGED to do so i.e. the blockading party is required to openly declare their blockade, to define the area under blockade, and to define the duration of that blockade. All of which they have done.

            Do you deny that?

            Now, once more, yet again: the blockading power has the obligation to (a) apply that blockade equally to all vessels attempting to violate it (the Houthis have done this) and (b) to allow the exercise of free passage to all neutral vessels not in violation of that blockade (again, the Houthis have done this).

            Again, do you deny that?

            There remains only the issue of how does that blockading power (i.e. the Houthi) distinguish between “blockade runners” and “neutral vessels”.

            Well, normally, the blockading power would board vessels and inspect the cargo and manifest to ensure that a vessel is not attempting to breach their blockade.

            All well and good, but every time the Houthi attempted that then the US Navy blew their vessel sky-high, with such regularity that the Houthi said “f**k that”. And fair enough.

            So they have done the next best thing: they have told all shipping companies what they need to do to signal the neutrality of their vessels, and the process is simplicity itself: alter their AIS data to include this line “VL NO CONTACT ISRAEL”

            That’s it. Nothing more. No less. Include that line in their AIS data and the Houthi will allow that vessel to travel through the Red Sea without any drama.

            TTG: “The Chinese owned and operated oil tanker MV Huang Pu was struck by a Houthi missile back in March”

            One more, yet again: what was that vessel broadcasting on AIS?

            The Houthi have given an assurance that neutral vessels will not be targeted.

            There is a concomitant obligation on shipping companies TO SIGNAL THEIR NEUTRALITY, and if they don’t do that then I know exactly where the blame lies, and it ain’t with the Houthi.

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            The MV Huang Pu is Chinese owned and Chinese operated. Why would they not be following Chinese orders? The MV Khalissa is Russian owned and was carrying sanctioned Russian oil to India and was attacked in January. It may also have been a case of faulty intelligence. The Indian managed MV Sai Baba, also carrying sanctioned Russian oil, was struck by a drone in December. The Greek managed MT Wind carrying Russian oil to China was struck by a Houthi missile in May. These strikes show Houthi actions are not consistent with their declarations. They are targeting and hitting what they can.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            “These strikes show Houthi actions are not consistent with their declarations. They are targeting and hitting what they can.”

            Yes. That is obvious to any honest observer. That fact highlights a really key point.

            Some of our correspondents want to believe that such people are honest brokers and that peace negotiations can be successfully worked with them (I include Hamas as an example of “such people”).

            Clearly Israel has decided that they are not honest brokers. The condemnations of Israel and the favoring of terrorists is all based on the notion of the Muslims radicals being honest brokers, which is all wishful thinking by naive starry-eyed westerners.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG: “Why would they not be following Chinese orders?”

            So you accept that you are making assumptions for which you have no evidence whatsoever.

            TTG: “It may also have been a case of faulty intelligence.”

            Again, you are making an assumption based on zero evidence.

            TTG: “These strikes show Houthi actions are not consistent with their declarations.”

            And third times a charm, heh?

            Look, I am going to point this out AGAIN, because I happen to be correct and you happen to be making guesses: The Houthis have declared time and time again that they will allow free and unhindered passage to vessels that declare their neutrality by adding “VL NO CONTACT ISRAEL” to their AIS data.

            Now, did the “MV Huang Pu” have that line added to their AIS data, do didn’t they?

            Also, did the “MV Khalissa” do likewise, or didn’t they?

            Finally, did the “MT Wind” also do so, or didn’t they?

            Because all your post amounts to is you saying: Dunno. Why wouldn’t they?

            Which any honest observer (not Eric, obviously) would have to conclude is NOT an answer and, therefore, your conclusion amounts to nothing more than a thoroughly unwarranted leap of faith.

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            You assume a Chinese owned and Chinese managed ship did not follow Chinese directions, just like you assume the other vessels attacked did not broadcast their neutrality. The Houthis should be warning the vessel prior to attacking them according to your exalted San Remo manual.

    • elkern says:

      TTG –

      This comment by Eric Newhill is pretty strong evidence that Barbara Ann was right about him.

    • Yeah, Right says:

      Eric: “The US lacks the resolve to put an end to this nonsense.”

      Oh, I totally agree with the gist of this statement, though not necessarily with the details. Still, even that level of agreement would mark a first.

      Eric: “The Houthis should be carpet bombed into oblivion”

      And…. there ya’ go, ruining the moment.

      The correct way for the USA to show the necessary resolve is to turn to Netanyahu and tell him in no uncertain terms that his genocidal assault on Gaza stops now.

      Do that and Netanyahu’s genocidal assault on Gaza would stop, and the Houthi blockade of the Red Sea would stop immediately after.

      Win/Win, and nobody dies. What’s not to like?

      Eric: “, blood thirsty savages that they are.”

      Hmmm. Zionist’s in glass-houses shouldn’t be so quick to throw that particular stone, Eric.

      39,000 dead and climbing.

      But not “39,000 and counting” because the Zionists have made a concerted effort to kill those whose job it was to do that counting.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        Your argument is predicated on
        1.fanatical terrorists being honest brokers; i.e. they would simmer down if given a cease fire and their own state.
        2. Israeli’s actions in Gaza being genocidal and completely inappropriate.

        These are assumptions without any basis of support in the evidence. Rather, on your part, an emotional favoring of terrorist organizations that you don’t understand.

        I strongly suggest you read up on the Muslim Brotherhood, which is what Hamas – and the PLO before that – really is; the Palestinian franchise. Hamas’ terrorism has nothing to do with what you think it does. The ideology and objectives predate the West Bank, Gaza and all of the other excuses found in terrorist propaganda that you have bought into.

        The Houthis – actually Ansar Allah – are a radical group that came on the scene in the 1990s, again, well before Gaza. These heroes of yours have killed a hell of a lot of Yemenis, directly with bullets and bombs, and partially indirectly, via the usual famine and disease and break down of societal structure that happens in any civil war, but, especially in third world countries. The death and destruction wrought by the Houthis on other Muslims far exceeds what is happening in Gaza; by orders of magnitude actually. These are very bad people – and you think they are honest brokers.

        • Yeah, Right says:

          1) The Houthis are not “fanatical terrorists”, they are a belligerent power who have entered an armed conflict on the side of Hamas.

          They are PERFECTLY entitled to do so, just as much as the USA is PERFECTLY entitled to intervene in an armed conflict on the side of Israel.

          Now, given that – and that is, indeed, a given – then a prudent person (sorry Eric, obviously not you) would listen to that belligerent power when they spell out their war aims.

          And the Houthi could not be any more clear-cut in their war aims: the assault on Gaza stops, their naval blockade of Israel stops.

          You can take that to the bank, Eric. Not every party is as duplicitous as the Zionists.

          2) Israel’s actions in Gaza are indeed genocidal in nature.

          Sorry, that’s just the way it is, and the USA’s ongoing complicity in this genocide is going to be a very, very dark stain in the history books.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            “You can take that to the bank, Eric. Not every party is as duplicitous as the Zionists.”

            Well sure if you say so. Pirates and mass murdering jihadists are totally trustworthy. Got it.

            “The Houthis are not “fanatical terrorists””

            Their flag literally reads, in part, “death to Israel, death the the USA”

            I understand all of that is normal and righteous in your mind, but maybe you could see why rational people might feel that is somehow akin to a terrorist statement.

            Btw, what color is the sky on your planet?

    • John Minehan says:

      Launch sites are perishable targets. It would really help to find the supporting log sites (Ammo holding areas, refueling sites for trucks, etc.).

  4. Rob Waddell says:

    Maybe the USA could put in place something they have been proposing for some months now.. a CEASEFIRE.. That would put the whole YidWog war on hold (at least temporarily) not to mention rehabilitating Americas world standing. A phone call would do it.

    So whats stopping this phone call then?
    Please dont give me ‘it’s complicated’ bullshit; whats really going on?

    I have been visting SST/Turcopolier since its inception and am still none the wiser about USA’s ‘love affair’ with Israel. Any answers?

    • TTG says:


      I think you overestimate the power of the US to control or at least influence events. The Netanyahu government continues to resist calls from Washington for a ceasefire. If we cut off all military aid, Israel will continue their fight against Hamas. The same with Ukraine. If the US cuts off support to Kyiv, Kyiv will continue to resist the Russian invasion. A phone call to Jerusalem or Kyiv will not stop the fighting in either land. I doubt if a failed call will rehabilitate our standing in the world.

      • frankie p says:

        If Rob overestimates is slightly, you certainly underestimate is severely. Rob is correct; one serious phone call from the US followed by cutting off all military aid and the Gaza action stops. Whichever puppet president makes that call will not win his next election, but that is just a rational estimate of the corrupt US political system and the huge amounts of Jewish money that drive it.

        Be real, TTG.

        • TTG says:

          frankie p,

          No way Israel, especially the Netanyahu government, will roll over just because we say so, no matter how serious the phone call is. The IDF will be sustained in its offensive by those “huge amounts of Jewish money” to purchase the ammo needed on the open market.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Delusional thinking.

            Any Israeli government who failed to see the seriousness of a “serious phone call” from the White House deserves the color revolution/CIA-backed overthrow that they would so very richly deserve.

            Especially Netanyahu, who knows for a fact that the moment he loses the Prime Minister’s position he is going to jail.

            One phone call – a “serious phone call” – from the White House would stop any Israeli Prime Minister in their tracks.

            And, as I said, if they didn’t then they’d join a very, very long list of foreign leaders who deluded themselves into thinking they were (a) indispensable and (b) irreplaceable.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            “The IDF will be sustained in its offensive by those “huge amounts of Jewish money” to purchase the ammo needed on the open market.”

            Hmmm, as statements go you might want to consider the deeper implications of what you just wrote.

            Because it reads very much like you take it for granted that all the “huge amounts of Jewish money” is discretionary spending that the Israeli government can avail itself of.

            In which case you’ve made a cogent case that all those “huge amounts of Jewish money” are being thrown around the US body politic by agents of a foreign government.

            Which would, of course, be illegal if they weren’t registered as agents of a foreign government, which…. they aren’t.

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            There is a distinction between Jewish money and Israeli money.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Stop being glib, TTG.

            TTG (then): “The IDF will be sustained in its offensive by those “huge amounts of Jewish money” to purchase the ammo needed on the open market.”

            TTG (now): “There is a distinction between Jewish money and Israeli money.”

            I now invite you to square that circle, because to *my* mind if the IDF can redirect that “Jewish money” toward the direct purchase of weapons on an open market then the distinction that you are now claiming is a “distinction without a difference”.

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            Much like the many private efforts to provide weapons and other war goods to Ukraine, Jewish money (and other sympathetic money) can purchase such items for Israel in addition to donating directly to Israel..

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG: “Jewish money (and other sympathetic money) can purchase such items for Israel in addition to donating directly to Israel..”

            You can’t possibly believe that.

            There are two reasons why that claim is nonsensical

            1) Private interests buying bulk amounts of weapons and ammo on the open market? Really? You really believe that is possible, when even the Government of Poland was unable to secure significant amounts of ammo on the open market for Zelensky.

            2) Please, pull the other one. The reason why “Jewish Money” is so effective in the USA is that the outlay of *millions* to American politicians results in the supply of US weapons to Israel values in the *billions*.

            But take those *millions* of lobby money onto the open market for the direct purchase of weaponry for Israel would net Netanyahu a packet of chewing gum, a roll of cigarettes, and a couple of magazines of NATO-standard 5.56mm bullets.

            If that.

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            The Czech ammo initiative is securing a million rounds for Ukraine with at least 180,000 already sent to Ukraine. This is mostly financed by states, but private donations are also raising millions. Note it is not a US initiative. The same could be done for Israel if necessary. If “Jewish money” buying US politicians doesn’t result in arms shipments to Israel, that Jewish money will flow elsewhere for the needed ammo. I’m surprised there hasn’t been a Jewish effort to replace 2,000 pound bombs with drones and drone operators on the open market.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG: “The Czech ammo initiative is securing a million rounds for Ukraine with at least 180,000 already sent to Ukraine”

            Feelgood nonsense. That “ammo initiative” is not going to secure a million rounds of artillery for Ukraine, and the Czech’s have openly admitted as much.

            That they have been able to scrounge up 180,000 shells of extremely dubious quality from various Aftrican and South-East Asian countries sounds about right: you’d get that amount by scraping the bottom of a very empty barrel.

            But that’s a one-and-done process. There is now nothing left if your “Jewish money” came a-calling.

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            It probably is a one and done process once those million rounds are delivered.The Czechs had already figured out a way to purchase 500,000 155 mm and 300,000 122 mm caliber artillery shells for Ukraine from producers outside the EU, well on the way to a million rounds.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            TTG: ” If “Jewish money” buying US politicians doesn’t result in arms shipments to Israel, that Jewish money will flow elsewhere for the needed ammo.”

            Now is a very good time for me to point out that TTG scrupulously avoided addressing the second objection I have to his fairy-tale, which is that the “Jewish money” that is splashed around in US Politics is very highly leveraged.

            As in: A mere $millions in “Jewish Money” poured into the pockets of American politicians results in the USA supplying $BILLIONS in weaponry to Israel.

            To repurpose that “Jewish Money” in the manner that TTG claims would buy Israel weaponry valued in the $millions e.g. not enough to make the slightest difference.

    • AmberCat says:

      I’m not so sure US standing is hurt bc of Israel/Palestine. India & Argentina are (diplomatically) pro-Israel. East Asians don’t care. Plenty of support in Europe/Canada for Israel. Seems the opposition is mostly hard-left, who are pretty dug in, not just on this one issue.

  5. James says:

    I see what the Houthis are doing as a way for Iran to get practical experience in how to do Long Range Precision Strikes against shipping … something Iran will want to be good at if we ever get into a hot war with them and they decide to close the Straight of Hormuz.

    I would imagine that there are IRGC specialists sitting right next to the Houthis who are doing all this.

    • James says:

      The US and its allies used to have a virtual monopoly on Long Range Precision Strike capability. This is no longer the case.

      – Israel unprepared for full-blown war with Hezbollah — senior electricity official
      – Head of company responsible for planning country’s electrical systems says Israel would be uninhabitable after 72 hours without power; after furor, claims he misspoke
      – From:

      • John Minehan says:

        They had similar problems in 2006 with Hezbollah. Israeli counterfire was ineffective and their armored attacks against the launchers were largely ineffective

        This (and unusually successful Kassem Rocket attacks by Hamas in ’08-/09 and ’12) drove the development of IRONDOME. That worked brilliantly in the 2014 Gaza War.

        Now ,however, Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah seem to know how to reduce IRONDOME’s effectiveness.

        To quote a certain Vulcan, “Military secrets are the most fleeting of all.”

  6. Yeah, Right says:

    “The Tutor had reportedly just completed a port call in Russia and was bound for Egypt when it was hit by a USV last Wednesday, about 66 nautical miles (122km) south-west of the Houthi-controlled Yemeni port of Hudaydah. ”

    Say that again? A ship that is travelling from Russia to Egypt is attacked 122km south of Egypt?

    Perhaps I’m being geographically-challenged here, but doesn’t that require the ship to have sailed clean past Egypt, even though it “was bound for Egypt”?

    Did the ship’s navigator just lose his charts? Or was his compass all wonky?

    • TTG says:

      Yeah, Right,

      Mark Logan provided this info on the MV Tutor’s itinerary.

      “According to Tradewinds, the ship was a coal carrier, left with a load of Russian coal from Ust-Luga Russia [near Saint Petersburg] on May 18, discharged at Port Said Egypt on June 6, and bound for India when attacked about 70 miles SW of Yemen.”

      • Mark Logan says:

        To amend that, the commercial tracker shows it did a stop at Aqaba Jordan on June 7, something Tradewinds missed, and then headed off for India.

        I thought the news here was that the Houtis hit a shipload of Russian coal. Russia, the ally of Iran. As Steve Martin might put it: “They are some wild and crazy guys!”

        • Yeah, Right says:

          Ah, OK, so the headline is indeed completely wrong.

          The ship was not sailing from Russia to Egypt, but was sailing from Egypt to India.

          Its cargo was not Russian coal, but Something Else That The Egyptians Had.

          Thanks, Mark.

          • Mark Logan says:

            Yeah, Right,

            You’re welcome. I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion they were hauling something from Egypt to India though. Certainly Egypt sells a lot of wheat to India, but it’s also possible that ship was delivering coal to multiple destinations.

            Bottom line: The Houtis are plinking off ships indiscriminately. Whatever their reasons are, it doesn’t seem to be for the reason they have given. Interesting. I would speculate it’s for internal reasons. They seek a uniting “enemy”, perhaps.

  7. Yeah, Right says:

    If two world wars taught us anything it is this: if you want to protect shipping then the most effective way to do so is to form them into convoys.

    I would have thought that is even more important when the main weapon for defending those commercial ships – anti-aircraft missiles – can’t be reloaded at sea.

    As in: you form your north-bound convoy in the India Ocean, it sails up the Red Sea with the escorts firing off missiles with gay abandon, and once clear of danger the escorts sail on to (say) Crete or Cyprus to dock and reload.

    Then those same escort ships form up with a south-bound convoy in the Mediterranean and the warships complete the journey in reverse, then sail on and restock at – oh, I dunno – Diego Garcia.

    Rinse and repeat as many times as necessary.

    • mcohen says:

      Yeah right.
      I appreciate your sharp analysis of the situation regarding the Tutor must question your “gay abandon” comment.

      This from the net

      When and why did Winston Churchill say: ‘The traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy and the lash’?
      CHURCHILL’S description of the Royal Navy is included in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations as having appeared in the book, Former Navy Person, by Sir Peter Gretton. The Oxford Dictionary suggests that Churchill’s phrase should be compared with naval phrases dating from the 19th century – ‘Rum, bum and bacca’ and ‘Ashore, it’s wine, women and song, aboard it’s rum, bum and concertina’.
      It looks as though here, as elsewhere, Churchill took an earlier quotation and improved upon it. In The Irrepressible Churchill, compiled by Kay Halle (Robson Books, 1985), Churchill is said to have used the phrase in 1913, when he was First Lord of the Admiralty. According to ‘an ear-witness’, he was having trouble with some of his admirals at a strategy meeting. One of them accused him of having impugned the traditions of the Royal Navy, provoking the reply: ‘And what are they? They are rum, sodomy and the lash

      • Yeah, Right says:

        mcohen, the phrase “gay abandon” is more than the sum of its two words.

        It is, indeed, a PHRASE with a specific meaning, and that meaning does not in any way, shape or form denote or even imply homosexual inclinations.

        It means what it means, and what it means is to do something without a care regarding the consequences.

        That’s it, nothing more. Churchill would agree, just as he would agree that forming merchant ships into a convoy in order to escort them through enemy waters is a Jolly Good Idea.

        After all, he was First Sea Lord, so he knew a thing or two about protecting shipping.

  8. F&L says:

    Hersh focuses on the upcoming Biden vs Trump debate but there’s much of interest in his latest piece today including behind the scenes discussions about turning Kharkov into another post-ww2 Trieste-style international city. He also mentions that casualties in Gaza are actually higher than reported.

  9. VietnamVet says:

    “The aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower — which had been leading the response against Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden — is returning home. U.S. Central Command announced that the carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt will head to the Middle East to maintain a presence in the region.”

    This all goes back to the decision by the Obama/Biden Administration and SOS Hillary Clinton to go to war with Russia and their support of the Maidan Coup in Ukraine in 2014. This was the biggest mistake of the new Millennium and ended the American Century. It drove Russia into the arms of China and has denied European access to cheap Russian Energy. Globalization is finished. The Key Bridge collapse, the blockade of the Suez Canal, the slowdowns by a third at the Panama Canal due to drought, Trump tariffs, and the proxy World War 3 in Europe, Middle East & soon Asia, assure that the only affordable food and goods will be grown & made at home.

    Shortages and further inflation are inevitable. This is the Malaise of the 1970s expounded exponentially. The more Americans who see that both Donald Trump and Joe Biden are the cause of this mess, the more likely that a third party will arise like in the 19th century. Future US Presidential Elections will be decided in the House of Representatives until either the Democratic or the Republican Party is replaced by an American People’s Party unless the Red/Blue North American States separate apart.

    • Fred says:


      That’s after Obama & Co. knocked off Gaddafi and brought slavery back to Libya, along with an ongoing civil war. Further that destruction prevented completion of pipeline(s) for oil and gas to Italy, which prevented them from having an energy supply not liked to the North Sea (UK, Norway) or ‘Russia Russia Russia’ (like Germany had). But “freedom”!!!!! and all that. Don’t forget SOFR replacing LIBOR and the impact that will have on our money.

      “Future US Presidential Elections will be decided in the House of Representatives until either ….” No that won’t happen either.

  10. Lars says:

    The demise of the Republic has been predicted with regularity since its inception. Most likely due to ingesting too much propaganda rather than actual information. When you have heavy traffic in the small town where I live, then you have a lot of people out doing whatever without any expectations that it is all imaginary. No doubt that we live in a difficult situation right now and mainly due to too many who want the US to fail. It will not. It did not when things were even worse in the past, so get over it and live your life as you wish.

  11. Keith Harbaugh says:

    Bad news in Dagestan:

    I, for one, have the utmost sympathy with the Russians.
    They are being beset on all sides.

  12. Wunduk says:

    Stavridis noted at Bloomberg that the only way to tackle the threat would be to go on shore and root out the network that feeds the attacks (
    ). Paywall so I summarise: defence (convoys & ship hardening) was necessary but not enough. Suggests tasking to gain overview of Houthi command centres and sensors, hints at the port of Salif and Kamaran Island, ten taking them out, acknowledges that we’re already on that path. As a second step, suggest striking Iranian support assets (surveillance ships, offshore platforms, the arms transports) directly.

    I tend to agree with Stavridis that the last step would be decisive. The Houthis themselves do not take targeting very serious, as this incident shows again after a series of others.

    Anyone confused about the Houthis and their compliance with any agreements should consult the Security Council’s record contained in the panel of experts’ reports on the Yemen (

    The Houthis had a deal before 7 October, only details (payments) were being hashed out and it would’ve handed the country to them, a bit like the Doha deal led to the Taliban take-over. They could have stuck to the deal then, or at any point after, and the deal’s sponsors are still willing to go through. Ansar Allah’s aspirations seem to get the better of them. So not unlike the Taliban, but they waited until the deal had gone through. One way to hint that this chapter is not closed might be to re-think the deal they got on Hudaydah.

Comments are closed.