President Trump is weighing whether America will join Saudi strikes on the Houthis after a Riyadh airport attack killed 12 people, including one American.
A projectile slammed into a passenger terminal at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, killing 12 people from several countries and wounding more than 200 others. The Saudi-led coalition blamed the Houthis for the strike, and one of the dead was an American.
President Donald Trump said Saturday the United States may join Saudi action against the Houthis and that Washington would decide quickly. He also said he planned to speak with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as the White House measured its next move.
Newsweek reported the attack hit Saudi Arabia’s main international airport and put fresh pressure on Trump’s options in a conflict that has already drawn in Yemen, Iran’s allies, and shipping lanes vital to global trade.
The Saudi-led coalition fighting the Houthis in Yemen said a projectile struck the passenger terminal. Coalition spokesman Colonel Turki al-Maliki described the strike on the terminal as occurring on Sunday, while reporting tied the deadly attack to Saturday.
Casualties spanned several countries. Twelve people were killed. More than 200 were wounded. Among the dead was one American citizen.
The U.S. State Department told reporters the United States strongly condemns Houthi attacks on civilian infrastructure and airports. A spokesperson said America stands with Saudi Arabia, is coordinating closely with officials in Riyadh, and urged U.S. citizens to avoid the airport and surrounding areas.
The Houthis, for their part, said the airport under their control in Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, had been struck again and threatened further escalation, according to the same reporting. The two sides have been fighting since 2015, when Saudi Arabia entered Yemen’s civil war on behalf of the internationally recognized government.
Asked whether the United States would join Saudi strikes on the Houthis, Trump left the door open and stressed speed.
"We may. We're going to look at it. We just found out about the recent attack, so we'll make a decision. We move very quickly."
Pressed on whether the attack changes his earlier position about not striking Iran again until after the midterms, he kept the same measured line.
"Well, we’re going to take a look."
Asked whether the U.S. might become involved, he answered: "Well, you're going to find out." On Saudi defenses, he said the kingdom can fight and called the attack a terrible thing.
"Well, they're able to defend. Look, the Saudis are good fighters, but I think the attack was a terrible thing."
He said he planned to speak with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Newsweek contacted the White House for further comment.
University of Chicago political-science professor Robert A. Pape, who tracks the Iran conflict on his Substack Escalation Trap, told Newsweek the Riyadh attack "dramatically increases" the chances Trump will launch attacks. Pape said advisers may put two military paths in front of him.
One path, he said, is to escalate against Iran directly because the Houthis are a key Iranian ally. "Iran may not have absolute hundred percent command control over the Houthis but Trump may well consider that attacking Iran will essentially allow him to get two effects with one attack: attack the Houthis indirectly and then attack Iran directly," Pape said.
He also described economic pressure through oil refining targets. "His economic advisers will be telling him that if he hits the oil refining targets that could well dramatically go up from the 90 percent to produce hyperinflation inside of Iran," Pape said. "That will be a very tempting thing for him because he believes punishment will cause Iran to capitulate."
Pape framed the airport strike itself as the core risk. "By shooting airplanes out of the sky and attacking airports that have Americans in them," he said. "That's the actual risk. All the other stuff everybody's talking about is yesterday's news." He also pointed to possible strikes on facilities on Perim Island used to help identify and track ships.
Jennifer Kavanagh, senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities in Washington, D.C., told Newsweek she does not expect Trump to pull the United States into the fight. In her view, the attack does not change core American interests.
"First, the escalation does not affect the United States. As Trump has said, the Houthis are not targeting U.S. ships and the United States does not depend on the Bab el-Mandeb that much," Kavanagh said. "Second, the United States cannot afford a wider conflict. It is already running short on munitions to defend its bases and for precision strikes. Finally, the United States can't do much except resume its bombing campaign on Houthi targets which did not work when the United States tried it before."
If America did get involved, she said, it would likely resemble the 2024-2025 pattern of air and naval strikes on Houthi targets. "If the U.S. does get directly involved, it would look like the 2024-2025 campaign, air and naval strikes on Houthi targets. We've already seen that the Houthis can withstand this," she said.
Broader fallout remains on the table either way. Reporting noted that U.S. involvement could lead the Houthis to halt shipping through the Bab el-Mandeb waterway and further restrict oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf, pressure that would hit energy markets and ordinary consumers far from Riyadh.
Whatever option Trump chooses, the facts on the ground are plain. A passenger terminal in a major capital was hit. Twelve people are dead. More than 200 are hurt. An American is among the killed. The Saudi-led coalition has named the Houthis. The State Department has condemned attacks on civilian infrastructure and warned U.S. citizens away from the area.
Trump has said the United States may join Saudi strikes, that he moves quickly, and that he will take a hard look, including at Iran, while talking with Riyadh’s leadership. Experts split on whether that review ends in limited Houthi strikes, wider pressure on Iran, or no new American combat role at all.
When militants turn a civilian airport into a target and an American is killed, a serious president owes the country a clear-eyed decision, not another endless lecture about restraint while the bodies are counted.
