longer

The Houthi attack on merchant ships in the Red Sea shows that asymmetric strategies have become one of the most disruptive forces in international security, often more effective than conventional state military power. The operations of these non-state groups not only disrupt global trade routes but also expose fundamental weaknesses in the international maritime security architecture. This phenomenon marks a major shift in the character of modern conflict: war is no longer the monopoly of states, and non-state actors are now capable of altering global strategic calculations at a much lower cost. This article argues that the Houthi operations reflect the failure of the traditional security paradigm and underscore the urgency of understanding irregular threats as a determining factor in contemporary geopolitical dynamics.

The Houthis’ success is rooted in the use of asymmetric strategies that combine low cost, high flexibility, and significant strategic impact. Unlike 20th-century insurgencies that relied on guerrilla tactics, the Houthis have increased the scale of the threat by utilizing kamikaze drones, ballistic missiles, and inexpensive surveillance systems. They direct these low-cost weapons at commercial vessels worth billions of dollars. When a single drone damages or threatens a merchant ship, dozens of global companies are forced to reroute, increase logistics costs, and face widespread economic risks. Asymmetric strategies work by avoiding the opponent’s main strengths and attacking points that render those strengths irrelevant. This is what is happening in the Red Sea: the superiority of modern warships is useless when the threat comes from small drones that are difficult to track and cheap to replace (Baylis and Wirtz, 2016).

The limitations of the navies of major countries in responding to these attacks highlight problems in traditional defense doctrine. The United States and Britain have deployed advanced combat fleets, but Houthi attacks continue and hit strategic targets. Major powers designed defense systems to deal with interstate threats, not irregular attacks from irregular actors who have no diplomatic obligations and do not submit to international norms. Modern insurgencies thrive by exploiting institutional gaps and the unpreparedness of states to respond to rapidly changing conflict dynamics. The Houthis are a case in point: they operate in a grey area that is not accounted for in conventional defense frameworks (Kilcullen, 2009).

The Houthis’ strategic strength stems not only from their military capabilities but also from their ability to exploit global economic interdependence. The Suez–Red Sea route is one of the world’s logistics hubs. When this region is disrupted, the consequences immediately affect the global energy market, European and Asian supply chains, and logistics costs for almost all sectors of international trade. Houthi attacks, although physically limited, have a huge psychological effect. When an attack occurs, dozens of international companies immediately review their navigation routes. This fear has a much greater economic impact than the physical damage to the ships that are targeted. In a strategic context, the Houthis have understood that creating uncertainty is a very cheap and very effective strategic weapon.

Moreover, Houthi operations are not merely military actions but part of broader geopolitical dynamics in the Middle East. They function as non-state actors and instruments in regional competition, particularly between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. With technological and logistical support from patron states such as Iran, the Houthis play a role in a larger regional strategy. This blurs the line between state and non-state actor strategies. Attacks on merchant ships are an effective way to put pressure on major countries without the political risks that usually accompany direct military action.

The involvement of non-state actors in the architecture of modern conflict reveals that the conventional concept of international security is no longer adequate. The doctrine of global maritime security was designed on the assumption that the main threat comes from rival states. However, the greatest threats today come from groups that do not have official navies, do not hold sovereign territory, and are not accountable to the international community. While states remain fixated on traditional threats, groups such as the Houthis are able to move quickly, flexibly, and effectively, exploiting every available opportunity. This is why international stability is increasingly vulnerable, even as the military power of major states continues to advance technologically.

The Red Sea crisis highlights the need for a major paradigm shift in global security strategy. Countries can no longer rely on interstate deterrence as the main pillar. A new model is needed that combines counter-drones, supply chain security, regional diplomacy, and conflict stabilization policies on land. Without a multidimensional approach, countries will continue to be stuck in short-term reactions rather than long-term strategies.

Ultimately, the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea are not merely a disruption to international trade but a warning that the global security order is undergoing a fundamental repositioning. The arguments in this paper show that asymmetric strategies have eroded state dominance and revealed the unpreparedness of international security structures to deal with irregular threats. If states fail to update their paradigms, the future of global stability will increasingly be determined by actors who have no international obligations, are not subject to the norms of war, and are able to maximize their power at minimal cost. The world is entering a new era of strategy, and the Red Sea is proof that state dominance is no longer the mainstay of contemporary warfare.

The I’m A Celebrity cast were split into pairs on Wednesday as they ‘went to war’ to battle it out for treats and food in camp, and the stars certainly took it seriously

A war was set on I’m a Celebrity as the latest episode saw the cast split into pairs, battling it out in new challenges.

Someone who took the battle very seriously was Vogue Williams, who took some savage swipes at her rival Kelly Brook. The duo had been paired up and faced tasks against each other.

Initially the stars took on ‘Mind Games’ where they had to race to be the first to eat a pig’s brain. It was pretty grim, while Vogue beat Kelly rather quickly.

Later on there was a rematch, and it’s then that Vogue hilariously took aim at Kelly. Telling her to leave, she advised her there was no point in her even being there, suggesting she was going to win once more.

Kelly said: “Fancy seeing you here!” Going head-to-head in a ‘Paint The Town’ challenge, the treat on offer was cheese and biscuits for their group. Kelly also laughed off Vogue’s suggestion that she should walk away, telling her co-star: “Listen, everyone loves an underdog Vogue, you know that.”

READ MORE: I’m a Celebrity RECAP: Aitch and Angry Ginge face the pits in Bushtucker TrialREAD MORE: I’m A Celeb’s Aitch and Ginge vow to replace Ant and Dec: ‘We’re coming for your job’

Vogue wasn’t done with the put-downs though, as she told Kelly she “wasn’t good enough”. She said before this: “Me and Kelly used to be friends but not anymore.” Kelly quipped: “I’ve never seen you cry but I’m about to.”

Just before the battle commenced, Vogue said: “You’re good, you’re just not good enough.” Vogue managed to win the challenge for her group, leaving Kelly defeated once more.

It was all fun and games though as the jungle war continues across the week. After the task Vogue and Kelly laughed away and hugged it out to show there were no hard feelings.

Fans were a bit stunned though after hearing Kelly call Vogue “a b***h”. One fan posted: “Kelly calling Vogue a b***h?!?” Another fan said: “lowk getting tense between Vogue and Kelly.” Others were amused by the moment and the battle between the pair.

It comes as two of the jungle stars joked to hosts Ant and Dec that they were planning on stealing their jobs. Aitch and Angry Ginge took part in a trial in front of the hosts on Wednesday.

As they were about to get on with proceedings, the pair joked with the hosts about replacing them. Musician Aitch told them: “We’re coming for your jobs after this!”

Ant and Dec were rather amused by the claim, amid the pair being tipped to become the next big celeb duo once they leave the jungle.

Fans even suggested then they could be the new Ant and Dec, as others begged ITV to give the pair their own show. One fan said: “Aitch and Ginge could possibly be the new Ant & Dec.”

Another viewer posted: “Aitch & Ginge seriously need their own show.” A third fan agreed: “Dear ITV… please give Ginge and Aitch their own tv show… what a duo.”

A fourth fan commented: “Give Ginge & Aitch their own chat show,” as another said: “Aitch & Ginge could easily be the next Ant & Dec.” A final comment read: “Careful Ant and Dec, think Aitch and Ginge are the new comedy duo.”

I’m A Celebrity 2025 airs every night at 9PM on ITV1 and ITVX. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

Nov. 13 (UPI) — Less than half of U.S. households place an importance on religion after declining by 17% over the past decade, according to a new Gallup poll.

Two-thirds of U.S. adults surveyed said religion was an important part of their daily life in 2015, Gallup reported Thursday.

That percentage dropped to 49% in 2025, which Gallup said is the largest recorded decrease by any nation since 2007.

“About half of Americans now say religion is not an important part of their daily life,” Gallup reported. “They remain as divided on the question today as they were last year.”

The 17-point drop in the United States over the past decade rarely have exceeded that rate of decline, with Greece posting a 28-point drop in 2023, Italy a 23-point drop in 2022 and Poland a 22-point drop in 2023.

Globally, the median regarding the importance of religion in people’s daily lives has stayed at about 81% since 2007 and was at 83% in 2024, according to Gallup.

Median does not the same as an average, though, and instead represents the middle, with about half being above and about half below the median number.

The decline in the importance of religion in U.S. households remains higher than the median among 38 nations that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Those nations posted a combined median of 36% of respective adults affirming that religion is an important part of their daily lives.

As the U.S. percentage drops, it more closely aligns with the OECD median for its member states.

Gallup said the gap is the narrowest ever between the United States and 37 other OCED nations.

The polling firm also identified four patterns for religious importance in the OCED states.

Nations that identify as being Christian generally place a high importance on religion, as do nations with a Muslim majority.

Christian-identifying nations also might have citizens who place a low importance on religion in their daily lives, while nations with no religious identity mostly place only a low amount of importance on religion in their daily lives.

Muslim-majority nations, though, do not share the same dichotomy as Christian-identifying nations.

Gallup said the United States no longer matches those four patterns and instead has medium-high Christian identity and “middling religiosity.”

The percentage of U.S. citizens who identify as Christian is similar to the percentages in Western and Northern European nations, but religion holds greater importance among Americans than it does among their European counterparts, according to the polling firm.