From the Houthi perspective, targeting Saudi oil facilities is a rational and strategic move in a conflict where they face superior firepower. The strikes aim to disrupt the economic engine that funds the coalition's air campaign, which has killed thousands of Yemeni civilians and destroyed infrastructure. By hitting Aramco assets, the Houthis directly threaten Saudi Arabia's ability to export oil, creating leverage to force the coalition to reconsider its bombing strategy.
Supporters argue that the Houthis have few other means to respond to daily airstrikes on their territory. The group's missile and drone programs offer a way to strike back at the kingdom's most valuable assets, potentially making the war too costly for Riyadh to continue. The Red Sea targets are particularly symbolic because they show the Houthis can project power far from their borders, undermining the coalition's claim to be protecting Saudi borders.
Moreover, the attacks serve as a warning to international oil markets that the conflict in Yemen has global consequences. By raising the risk premium on Saudi crude, the Houthis hope to attract greater international pressure on the coalition to end the war. Some analysts see this as a form of asymmetric warfare that, while risky, is one of the few cards the rebels can play.
Critics of this view would point to the humanitarian cost of disrupting oil supplies, but supporters counter that the coalition's blockade and airstrikes have already caused immense suffering. In their calculation, targeting oil infrastructure is a legitimate act of self-defense against an enemy that uses the proceeds to bomb civilians. Whether this strategy succeeds will depend on how long the Houthis can sustain their attacks and whether the coalition's will to fight weakens.