Remember the Signal chat 'scandal'? Well, Iran doesn't these days, as both the New York Times and the Economic Times acknowledged over the weekend. The use of Signal for sensitive discussions was a mistake, but the policy and strategy employed by Donald Trump and his administration have already begun to pay dividends in Yemen -- and in Iran.

In less than three months, Trump has turned the situation in the Red Sea entirely around, the Economic Times reported on Saturday. The deadly strikes on the Houthis in Yemen -- and Trump's public pledge to hold Iran directly responsible for Houthi attacks -- has Tehran rapidly restrategizing. They may be cutting off aid to their last proxy in the region in an attempt to deal with the threat of direct action from the US:

Iran leaves Houthis hanging as Trump intensifies pressure: Are we headed for a wider Middle East war? - As the world watches tensions boil over in the Middle East, a dramatic shift in strategy is unfolding—one that could change the course of conflict in the region. Iran appears to be abandoning its Houthi allies in Yemen, just as former U.S. President Donald Trump ramps up military pressure and issues stark warnings to Tehran.

In a surprising move, Iran has reportedly ordered its forces to back off from supporting the Houthi rebels, signaling a potential pivot in its long-standing proxy strategy. This comes in the wake of relentless U.S. airstrikes in Yemen after the Houthis launched multiple drone and missile attacks on American warships in the Red Sea—including two direct hits on the USS Harry Truman and its accompanying vessels in under 24 hours.

Trump didn't hold back. He vowed to hold Iran directly accountable for “every shot” the Houthis fire—and his words were followed by precision bombing campaigns. Sources suggest Tehran’s leadership, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is now more focused on preparing for a possible full-scale U.S. strike rather than pouring resources into proxy groups.

The key may have been the move that Duane flagged two weeks ago -- the move of a squadron of B-2 Stealth bombers to Diego Garcia:

There are growing signs that direct military confrontation could be on the horizon. Trump, who’s returned to a hardline stance, issued a chilling ultimatum to Iran: agree to a new nuclear deal or face “bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.”

To show he’s serious, the U.S. has already deployed five B-2 Spirit bombers to Diego Garcia—a remote British-controlled island in the Indian Ocean. These long-range stealth bombers are capable of carrying over 25 tons of explosives each, and their range easily covers Iran’s territory.

The American media paid little attention to that move, preferring instead to obsess over the admittedly amateurish Signal chat faux pas. That turned out to be a classic case of missing the forest for the trees, however, a mistake that Iran didn't make. The mullahs have put their missile launchers underground and are trying to strategize on how to keep Trump at bay. More importantly, The Telegraph (UK) reported that a senior Iranian military official told them, “The Houthis will not be able to survive and are living their final months or even days”:

The Telegraph also reported that the Iranians have essentially cut bait in Yemen. They have pulled their military advisers out and apparently do not plan to resupply them. The explanation was that former Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah really was the key to Iran's proxy strategy in the region, and that his death -- and the collapse of the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria -- put an end to their encirclement strategy. Trump's decision to flat-out destroy the one proxy that had remained standing tipped Iran away from its 45-year expansionist ambitions, and now they are entirely focused on survival instead.

Yesterday, former CENTCOM commander Kenneth McKenzie scolded the media in an NYT column for obsessing over Signal while missing the overarching strategic impact of the policies. All of this could have been achieved earlier, but the US lacked the political will to enforce free passage in the Red Sea, mainly out of a misguided policy of Iran appeasement. There's a reason the Iranians have begun signaling a desire to engage the US in negotiation now, and it's not because we're playing nice to the mullahs, McKenzie points out:

Iran respects force. The Suleimani strike five years ago and now the strikes against the Houthis clearly show the United States has a president who isn’t paralyzed by the potential for escalation.

Because of these developments, we now have an opportunity to bring Iran to the table for substantive negotiations over its nuclear ambitions — negotiations that must be conducted directly, not through third-party interlocutors, and with no scene-setting preconditions or concessions. Even as we strike back against the Houthis, the time is also ripe to pressure Iran to renounce any potential pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Tehran has so far resisted direct talks with the United States. Why would it now be open to  them? Because it recognizes that the possibility of a U.S. or Israeli strike on its nuclear program is closer to reality than at any time in recent history. The highest goal of Iranian statecraft is regime preservation. If the survival of the clerical leadership is directly and credibly threatened, Iran will modify its behavior. We now have the tools and the will to create this threat in a meaningful manner.

The mullahs in Tehran know that now. Trump has made clear that he intends to settle all of his old scores as soon as possible, now that he has returned to office. And now that the Israelis have eliminated their Hezbollah line of defense and their Syrian counterweight in the region, the FO end of their FAing looms large in their imaginations. As it should, and as it should have all along.