Not taking military action against the Houthis would have led to “more attacks” in the Red Sea, according to Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron.
The British military took part in a joint operation in Yemen alongside the US this week in retaliation for the targeting of international trade in the key shipping lane – followed up by a fresh attack by the US on Friday night.
Lord Cameron said the action by the Houthis was “effectively terrorist attacks”, adding: “If you don’t act against the Houthis in the Red Sea, you are going to see more attacks.”
And he hinted the government would be willing to join in further military action, telling Sky News’ Sunday Morning with Trevor Philips the UK had “demonstrated that we are prepared to follow words and warning with action”.
Image: RAF Typhoons strike military targets in Yemen
Lord Cameron also warned: “It is hard to think of a time when there has been so much danger and insecurity and instability in the world.
“The lights are absolutely flashing red on the global dashboard and what we need at that time is strong leadership and a plan and that is what we have with the prime minister and the team in place.”
More on David Cameron
Related Topics:
The foreign secretary further defended the initial response to the attacks on ships in the Red Sea, saying there had been 26 incidents since November – including an attack on HMS Diamond, that saw over 20 drones and missiles used by the Houthis.
Asked about concerns that the military operation could lead to an escalation in tensions in the Middle East, the foreign secretary said: “What are the consequences of not acting?
Advertisement
“We have endured almost two months of continual attacks and we gave warning after warning and frankly, ultimately that wasn’t working and the number of attacks was going up, the severity of those attacks was going up.
“So not acting is also a policy, and it was a policy that wasn’t working.”
A spokesman for the Yemeni armed forces in the Houthi-controlled north of the country said in a televised statement that the bombardment “will not go unanswered and unpunished” – saying it would not deter their support for Palestinians amid Israel’s war in Gaza.
Lord Cameron denied any link between the Red Sea attacks, saying the action was “completely separate”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:54
Houthis vow ‘punishment’ for attacks
However, also speaking to Trevor Philips, the former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, said the strikes had “inevitable” connections to the Israel-Hamas conflict.
“If one’s being rational in analysis, I agree with David Cameron that freedom of navigation is a different issue from Gaza, but the Arab street doesn’t think that,” he said.
“Inevitably there’s a connection. They’re going to have an impact across the whole area.”
Cameron may need to keep unintended consequences in mind
If there’s a foreign policy mantra to be extracted from David Cameron’s time as prime minister, it is likely around the cost of doing nothing.
As he wrote in his memoir about the 2011 intervention in Libya to stop a massacre in Benghazi, “to do nothing in these circumstances was not a neutral act – it was to facilitate murder”.
Two years after the Libya strikes and Cameron made a similar argument to persuade MPs to back bombing in Syria. It didn’t work.
He was defeated in a Commons vote and ruled out any intervention.
The now Lord Cameron says he still believes that was a mistake, but denies he is “over-correcting” by taking a firm line against the Houthis.
It is worth looking at how events in Libya and Syria ultimately played out though.
After initial claims of a new era of freedom, Libya eventually descended into violence, with the UK intervention criticised as ill-informed and lacking in strategy.
In Syria, President Assad remains in power, while Russian involvement there has increased Moscow’s influence in the region.
Two countries. Two different approaches. One similarly undesirable outcome for the UK.
A related danger hangs over military involvement against the Houthis. Set against the wider turbulence in the Middle East, any direct Western involvement must present a risk of triggering uncontrolled escalation.
Far from the cost of doing nothing, it may be the rule of unintended consequences that the foreign secretary should keep in mind.
The government has got the support of Labour in the action, with shadow health secretary Wes Streeting telling Sky News it was an “open and shut case”.
He also said his party understood the need to act “swiftly and decisively” without recalling parliament to debate the issue.
“These strikes were targeted and focussed and absolutely necessary in Britain’s self-defence and national interest,” Mr Streeting told Trevor Philips.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:59
How UK jets struck the Houthis
But the Liberal Democrats have attacked the government for “bypassing” parliament, and called for a retrospective vote on the action in the Commons when the prime minister makes a statement on Monday.
The party’s foreign affairs spokesperson, Layla Moran, said: “We remain very concerned about the Houthi’s attacks.
“But that makes it all the more important to ensure that MPs are not silenced on the important issue of military action.”
Trust Wallet, the self-custodial crypto wallet owned by Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao, has partnered with European fintech unicorn and digital banking giant Revolut to introduce a new way to purchase crypto assets on its platform.
Trust Wallet users can now buy Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH) and Solana (SOL) with Revolut through a direct integration, the company announced on Thursday.
With a minimum purchase starting at 10 euros ($12) and capped at 23,000 euros ($26,950) daily and per transaction, Trust Wallet’s new buy option is expected to provide a faster and easier way to access crypto from Europe.
The integration will initially support only three crypto assets, but the companies said they expect to add stablecoins such as Circle’s USDC (USDC) at a later stage.
The feature enables zero-fee crypto purchases using multiple fiat currencies supported by Revolut, including the euro, the British pound, as well as the Czech koruna, Danish Krone, Polish Złoty and others.
While Revolut–Trust Wallet crypto purchases are offered with zero fees, adding money to a Revolut account is not free of charge in many cases, including via bank transfers, card top-ups and cash deposits. Cash deposits are subject to a 1.5% fee and are limited to $3,000 per calendar month, according to Revolut’s FAQs.
The integration came shortly after Revolut secured a $75 billion company valuation after completing a private share sale in late November. “This makes us Europe’s most valuable private company and in the top 10 of the world’s most valuable private companies,” Revolut said in a post on X.
CZ-backed Trust Wallet has been actively tapping into trending market sectors, including prediction markets and real-world asset tokenization, expanding access to these offerings for self-custody users.
Cointelegraph contacted Revolut and Trust Wallet for comment on the integration, but had not received a response by publication.
Doctors in England planning to go on strike in the run-up to Christmas are considering a new offer from the government to end the long-running dispute.
Resident doctors, formerly junior doctors, will walk out from 7am on 17 December until 7am on 22 December.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting has appealed to doctors to accept the government’s latest package.
The British Medical Association (BMA) said it will consult members by surveying them online on whether or not the deal from the government is enough to call off next week’s walkout.
The poll will close on Monday – just two days before the five-day strike is set to start.
Image: The number of people in hospital with flu in England is at a record level for this time of year. File pic: PA
The union said the new offer includes new legislation to ensure UK medical graduates are prioritised for speciality training roles.
It also includes an increase in the number of speciality training posts over the next three years – from 1,000 to 4,000 – with more to start in 2026.
Funding for mandatory Royal College examination and membership fees for resident doctors is also part of the deal.
It does not address resident doctors’ demand for a 26% salary rise over the next few years to make up for the erosion in their pay in real terms since 2008 – this is on top of a 28.9% increase they have had over the last three years.
Monterosa
This content is provided by Monterosa, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Monterosa cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Monterosa cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Monterosa cookies for this session only.
Mr Streeting warned a resident doctors’ strike over Christmas would have a “much different degree of risk” than previous walkouts.
It coincides with pressures facing the NHS, with health chiefs raising concerns over a “tidal wave” of illness and a “very nasty strain of flu”.
A new strain of the flu virus is thought to be much more infectious than previous strains and has already led to a record number of patients needing urgent hospital care.
The union’s mandate to strike is set to expire shortly, but Mr Streeting has offered to extend it to allow the medics to take action later in January if they reject his offer.
He called the union’s decision not to take it up “inexplicable”.
Last week, NHS England chief executive Sir Jim Mackey branded the decision by doctors to strike as “something that feels cruel” and which is “calculated to cause mayhem at a time when the service is really pulling all the stops out to try and avoid that and keep people safe”.
BMA resident doctors committee chair Dr Jack Fletcher said the latest government offer “is the result of thousands of resident doctors showing that they are prepared to stand up for their profession and its future”.
“It should not have taken strike action, but make no mistake: it was strike action that got us this far,” he said.
“We have forced the government to recognise the scale of the problems and to respond with measures on training numbers and prioritisation.
“However, this offer does not increase the overall number of doctors working in England and does nothing to restore pay for doctors, which remains well within the government’s power to do.”
Polish lawmakers have doubled down on crypto regulation rejected by President Karol Nawrocki, deepening tensions between the president and Prime Minister Donald Tusk.
Polska2050, part of the ruling coalition in the Sejm — Poland’s lower house of parliament — reintroduced the extensive crypto bill on Tuesday, just days after Nawrocki vetoed an identical bill.
The bill’s backers, including Adam Gomoła — a member of Poland2050 — called Bill 2050 an “improved” successor to the vetoed Bill 1424, but government spokesman Adam Szłapka reportedly declared that “not even a comma” had been changed.
The division over Poland’s crypto bill comes amid the rollout of the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) across member states ahead of a July 2026 compliance deadline for EU crypto businesses.
Critics say Bill 2050 is “exactly same bill”
The new version of Poland’s draft crypto bill provides an 84-page-long document that essentially replicates the original Bill 1424, aiming to designate the Polish Financial Supervision Authority as the country’s primary crypto asset market regulator.
He also mocked Tusk’s claim that the president’s earlier veto was tied to the alleged involvement of the “Russian mafia,” saying: “The bill is perfect, and anyone who thinks otherwise is funded by Putin.”
Government spokesman Szłapka reportedly claimed that Nawrocki will likely not veto the proposed bill this time, following a classified security briefing in parliament last week and “now has full knowledge” of the implications on national security.
The issue with MiCA: Local versus centralized EU oversight
Poland’s debate over its crypto bill sets an important precedent for implementing the EU-wide MiCA regulation, as the proposed legislation would place responsibility for market supervision on the local financial regulator.
The issue is particularly significant amid calls from some member states for more centralized MiCA supervision under the Paris-based European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
In October, the Bank of France urged the EU to give the ESMA direct supervisory powers, warning that a fragmented approach to oversight could undermine the bloc’s financial sovereignty.
Notably, Polish economist Krzysztof Piech — a prominent critic of Poland’s proposed crypto bill — has questioned the need for the local legislation, noting that MiCA protections will take effect in 2026.
While local reports suggest that Nawrocki may not veto the bill this time, there is also speculation that his office has been presented with an “alternative” draft aimed at creating more favorable market conditions. The proposed alternative is reportedly designed to align with the EU-wide MiCA framework and remove direct oversight from the local regulator.