Houthi threats have kept shipping away from the Port of Eilat for nearly three years, while the United States is preparing a proposed $2.8 billion sale of heavy munitions to Israel that has already drawn controversy in Washington and among European allies. The two moves, reported separately on Sept. 17, 2026, show the same old arrangement in different uniforms: armed groups and states making ordinary people pay for their strategic games.
The Houthis’ takeover of key points along Yemen’s western coast and of Perim Island in the Bab al-Mandab Strait has renewed attention to a threat Israel has been paying a price for for nearly three years. Even before the threat to Saudi oil routes pushed Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to seek US assistance, the Houthis had already nearly shut down regular commercial shipping to Eilat. The article says no solution remains. The port keeps limping along. The route doesn’t.
The Port, the Strikes, the Dead End
The IDF has repeatedly struck Houthi targets in Yemen, the state has provided assistance to the port, and an alternative import route has been established through Aqaba. None of it has brought international shipping companies back to regular, direct sailings from the East to Eilat. Publicly available information does not show a cabinet decision making the restoration of commercial freedom of navigation to Eilat a security and diplomatic objective, and the government has not presented an approved plan to bring ships back to the port.
Recent developments have changed the political geometry, not the reality on the water. The Houthi threat to Bab al-Mandab has become an urgent strategic issue for Saudi Arabia as well, and the Saudi crown prince has already requested military assistance from the US. Israel and Saudi Arabia now have parallel diplomatic and strategic interests concerning the same maritime route. From Israel’s perspective, Saudi Arabia’s predicament creates an opportunity to fold a regional military effort around Bab al-Mandab into its own effort to restore shipping to Eilat.
The Houthis captured Mocha, advanced along the coast, and took control of Perim, the island inside the Bab al-Mandab Strait. They also seized Greater Hanish and Lesser Hanish islands, strengthening their hold around one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints. Traffic through the strait continues, and the Houthis do not currently control the passage in a way that would allow them to halt all shipping. Their positions do, however, improve their ability to monitor maritime traffic and selectively threaten vessels they choose to target. Bab al-Mandab is only about 18 miles wide, connecting the Gulf of Aden to the Red Sea and then to the Suez Canal. In normal periods, oil equivalent to roughly 7% of global production passes through it.
For Israel, the problem has persisted since November 2023, when the Houthis began attacking and threatening vessels linked to Israel. Major shipping companies stopped calling at Eilat along the previously standard route. The port kept operating on a limited basis, but the commercial activity it relied on was severely damaged. In 2023, the Port of Eilat recorded 132 ship calls and unloaded approximately 150,000 vehicles. In 2024, it recorded only 16 ship calls and unloaded no vehicles. Port revenue, which stood at approximately NIS 212 million in 2023, fell by about 80% the following year.
Aid, Subsidies, and the NGO-Style Fix That Didn’t Fix It
This year, a workaround brought some vehicle-import activity back to Eilat without the big car carriers returning. Ships arriving from the East docked in Aqaba, Jordan, where the vehicles were unloaded and then transferred to Eilat on smaller vessels. In March alone, 5,905 vehicles were unloaded in Eilat, followed by another 3,142 in April. The arrangement through Aqaba restored activity to the port and eased its predicament, but the direct shipping route from the East has not resumed. International shipping lines still do not call directly at Eilat as they did before the war. The large car carriers stop in Aqaba, and the cargo continues from there to Eilat.
Since 2023, Israel has addressed the problem through several channels. The IDF has struck Houthi targets in Yemen, and the defense establishment deals with the threat from Yemen on an ongoing basis. Israeli strikes have focused on damaging Houthi capabilities and responding to attacks against Israel. Publicly available information does not indicate an approved plan in which restoring regular commercial shipping to Eilat was defined as an objective in its own right.
The issue surfaced unusually prominently during a Knesset Economic Affairs Committee hearing in June. MK Oded Forer argued that the shipping route to Eilat was effectively closed because of the Houthis and that the government had not made reopening it a diplomatic and security objective. "It doesn't matter who the operator is. If ships don't enter the port, there will be no port," he said. Eilat Mayor Eli Lankri said the port was almost completely shut down.
For more than two years, a significant share of government efforts has focused on the port's economic distress. The state allowed payment deferrals, provided a loan guarantee, and approved direct assistance. It also formulated a plan to subsidize the arrival of car carriers, under which it approved about half a million dollars per ship, aiming to bring four ships a month for three months, at a total cost of up to NIS 21 million. The plan was not implemented. During Knesset discussions in early 2026, the situation was described as a "dead end." According to figures presented by the port management, its debts had reached approximately NIS 30 million, while the monthly gap between expenses and revenue stood at around NIS 5 million.
Most government efforts focused on financing the port's continued operation and trying to restore cargo traffic. Publicly available information does not indicate that any specific government body was given overall responsibility for restoring the direct shipping route to Eilat. At the same time, the port tried to promote additional solutions. Its management examined the possibility of US assistance, approached Egypt, and attempted to advance mechanisms that would make it easier for ships to arrive through a safer or more heavily subsidized route. None of those efforts have brought international shipping lines back to regular, direct operations in Eilat so far.
The port's future also remains undecided. The current operator's concession is due to expire in 2028, and the state has yet to decide what the operating model will look like afterward. The debate over the identity of the next operator is taking place while the issue that determines whether the port can function at all — the return of ships — remains unresolved. Eilat cannot replace Ashdod and Haifa in every scenario. It is not a major container port, and its infrastructure is limited. Its importance comes from geography: It is Israel's only commercial port facing the Red Sea. If activity at the Mediterranean ports is disrupted or restricted, an operational southern maritime gateway could provide Israel with an additional route. For it to be usable in an emergency, Israel must also maintain infrastructure, workers, equipment, and a functioning logistics system during routine periods.
In the background sits a fact that has almost disappeared from Israel's public agenda: an Iran-backed organization, operating from roughly 2,000 kilometers away, succeeded in prompting international shipping companies to stop calling regularly at Eilat. Even after a long series of Israeli strikes in Yemen, the ships have not returned. Nearly three years after regular shipping to Eilat was disrupted, the government has invested money and effort to preserve the port and prevent its collapse. It succeeded in keeping the port alive. It has still not brought the ships back.
Washington’s Bomb Pipeline
Separately, Arab News reported that the United States is preparing a proposed sale of tens of thousands of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel worth $2.8 billion. The proposed package includes 40,000 2,000-pound-class bombs — 20,000 MK-84 and 20,000 BLU-117 bomb bodies — plus 20,000 I-2000 penetrator warheads. The BLU-117 is a thermally protected variant of the MK-84 designed to make it safer for naval storage. Both are 2,000-pound-class bombs. The MK-84 was known to US pilots during the 1990-91 Gulf War as "The Hammer."
The use of such weapons in Gaza, and the civilian casualties they have caused, has drawn international condemnation from governments and human rights groups alike. On Oct. 31, 2023, Israeli aircraft dropped at least two 2,000-pound bombs on the densely populated Jabaliya refugee camp just north of Gaza City, according to a New York Times analysis of imagery and expert assessments. The Israeli military said at the time that the strike targeted a Hamas commander and other fighters, along with underground infrastructure beneath the camp. Gaza hospital officials said the effect was devastating, with hundreds wounded and massive craters where residential buildings had stood.
Burcu Ozcelik, senior research fellow for Middle East security at RUSI, said, "The proposed sale will inevitably be controversial, both within the United States and among European allies, given the scale of destruction and civilian suffering in Gaza," and added, "despite periodic tensions between President Trump and Netanyahu, US military support for Israel rests on a longstanding and deeply institutionalized security commitment that continues largely uninterrupted." The news was reported on Tuesday by the Washington Post, citing an unnamed US official. Analysts say the scale of the proposed sale, worth $2.8 billion, is extraordinary.
Amnesty International told Arab News that "if confirmed, these reports are yet another slap in the face of international law and America’s human-rights obligations and send a clear message that despite Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza and unlawful attacks in Lebanon, the US is continuing to provide it with the material support and diplomatic cover, risking complicity with atrocity crimes." A spokesperson added that Amnesty "has repeatedly called on the UN Security Council to impose a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel, and on third states, including the US, which is the biggest supplier of weapons to Israel, to stop selling or transferring arms to Israel because of the documented use of such weapons in gross violations of international law." The spokesperson said continuing arms transfers also conflicted with restrictions under US law.
"Section 502B of the US Foreign Assistance Act, for instance, prohibits the US government from providing arms to foreign governments involved in consistent patterns of gross human rights violations, including violations of international law," she said. "The evidence is clear and overwhelming: Israel has already widely and systematically used US-made weapons to commit serious human rights violations, including possible war crimes, against Palestinians, in some instances wiping out entire families in Gaza." Section 502B generally prohibits security assistance to governments engaged in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, subject to exceptions specified in the law.
Israel’s official position is that its military operations target Hamas and other armed groups, not civilians, and that the IDF takes measures to reduce civilian harm, including considering the weapons used and canceling attacks when expected civilian harm is judged excessive. America is not selling these bombs to Israel. The proposed sale would reportedly be financed largely through US Foreign Military Financing grants, meaning American taxpayers would fund most of the purchase. This operates under the Arms Export Control Act, which "authorizes the President to finance procurement of defense articles and services for foreign countries and international organizations." According to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, part of the Defense Department, the secretary of state determines which countries are eligible to receive Foreign Military Financing, and the secretary of defense issues specific grants under the system.
Politically, in America these weapons have a controversial history. In May 2024, amid mounting concern over civilian casualties in Gaza, the Biden administration paused a shipment that included 2,000-pound bombs destined for Israel. At the time, the US government feared Israel was about to launch a major ground operation in Rafah, where more than a million people had sought refuge. It was, said a US official at the time, "especially focused on the end-use of the 2,000-pound bombs and the impact they could have in dense urban settings as we have seen in other parts of Gaza." President Joe Biden had already described Israel’s bombing in Gaza as "indiscriminate," but the US had nevertheless continued to supply vast amounts of ordnance.
The hold on the 2,000-pound bombs remained in place for about eight months, until Trump took office. Within days of his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump lifted the hold. "We released them today," he said on board Air Force One on Jan. 25, "and they’ll have them ... they’ve been waiting for them for a long time. They’ve been in storage."
The latest proposal would represent the largest single sale of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel in recent years, according to the Washington Post. Delivery of such orders can take years. What is not clear is why the administration is pursuing the sale now, at a time when Trump’s Board of Peace is trying to overcome mutual suspicion between Hamas and Israel in the hopes of disarming the group and persuading Israel to withdraw. "If the Trump administration’s goal is to calm things down in the Middle East, the timing of this is unusual," Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group, told the Washington Post.
Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, specializing in US foreign policy and national security, said, "The wars of the Middle East are not over, and Israel continues to experience threats." He added, "The somewhat limited violence and war we have seen this past summer, compared to the bigger battles of the spring, may end up being a brief interlude." He also said, "The inconclusive war against Iran has placed the broader region in a dangerous disequilibrium with many unresolved issues," posing "real threats that could require America and its partners, such as Israel, to have the capacity to defend themselves."
Ozcelik told Arab News that the context of the deal "extends beyond Gaza: the ongoing confrontation with Iran, while the Houthis’ advances in Yemen and the threat they pose to Red Sea security, have added another volatile front." She said, "The possibility of wider regional escalation is therefore more than theoretical. The Trump administration will likely present the package as reinforcing Israel’s capacity to respond to this increasingly complex threat environment. But critics will question whether supplying such powerful munitions could itself intensify the risks." Caroline Rose, a senior director at The Soufan Center, focused on security and defense, said the timing of the deal could be an indication of "mounting Israeli pressure on the US as the Trump administration seeks a deal with Iran." She added, "This could likely be the US assuaging Israel while it seeks a quick exit from its ongoing war with Iran, accounting for the likelihood of Israeli unilateral escalation in the region in the face of a deal."
The proposed sale is not final. It has reportedly been informally notified to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a preliminary consultation distinct from the formal statutory congressional review process. Growing opposition to Trump’s war in Iran and his support for Israel, reflected in recent polls, could complicate its passage. "Donald Trump is sending bombs paid for by American taxpayers to a government led by a wanted war criminal — all while the Netanyahu government continues to bomb Gaza and Lebanon, and block justice and accountability for Americans killed on its watch," said Chris Van Hollen, the Democratic senator from Maryland, on Tuesday. "This is not putting Americans first. We will work to stop it."
The administration, said the ICG’s Finucane, "seems to be sending contradictory signals with this arms sale and rhetoric about calming hostilities in the region." But, he added, "there may be a calculation within the administration — and potentially in Israel — that a new Congress in 2027 in which the Democrats control one or both houses might be able to block the arms sale."
The Trump administration has sidestepped congressional review on a similar transfer before. On Feb. 28, 2025, the State Department invoked emergency authority to bypass the normal congressional review period for a proposed $2.04 billion sale comprising 35,529 MK-84 or BLU-117 bomb bodies and 4,000 I-2000 penetrator warheads. In a statement at the time, it said that Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, "has determined and provided detailed justification that an emergency exists that requires the immediate sale to the Government of Israel of the above defense articles and defense services in the national security interests of the United States, thereby waiving the Congressional review requirements."
The timing of the proposed sale "could prove politically consequential" in Israel, said Ozcelik. The country’s parliamentary election is scheduled for Oct. 27. "If the package is approved before Israel’s elections at the end of October, it may be interpreted, inside Israel as well as internationally, as a vote of confidence by Trump in Netanyahu," she said. "Whether or not that is Trump’s intention, Netanyahu can be expected to present it that way during his ongoing campaign."
The use in built-up areas of weapons such as those included in the proposed sale has drawn international condemnation. The Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas was adopted in 2022. The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs currently lists 91 endorsements, including that of the US. Israel has not endorsed the declaration. The nonbinding declaration highlighted the severe civilian harm caused by explosive weapons in populated areas and reaffirmed the prohibitions on indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks. It does not impose a general prohibition on explosive weapons, but calls for restricting or refraining from their use as appropriate when civilian harm may be expected. It added that the use of explosive weapons in populated areas "can have a devastating impact on civilians and civilian objects." "Blast and fragmentation effects, and resulting debris, cause deaths and injuries, including lifelong disabilities." Beyond these direct effects, "civilian populations, particularly children, are exposed to severe and long-lasting indirect effects — often referred to as reverberating effects." The declaration explained that damage to or destruction of critical infrastructure, including energy, food, water and sanitation systems, disrupts the provision of basic needs and essential services such as healthcare and education. It added: "The damage and destruction of housing, schools, hospitals, places of worship and cultural heritage sites further aggravates civilian suffering." Each endorsing state pledged to ensure that "our armed forces, including in their policies and practices, take into account the direct and indirect effects on civilians and civilian objects which can reasonably be foreseen in the planning of military operations and the execution of attacks in populated areas, and conduct damage assessments, to the degree feasible, and identify lessons learned."