Houthi official warns the US of a "swift and painful response" if it enters the war in Yemen, reports Sky News Arabia citing AFP

Threats of this kind against Gulf energy infrastructure follow a well-worn script: the group has a long record of missile and drone operations against Saudi facilities, and past strikes on processing and export assets have shown that even temporarily successful attacks can remove meaningful supply at short notice, while failed attempts tend to be faded quickly in crude. The distinction that matters is rhetorical versus kinetic: warnings to workers to vacate named asset classes have preceded actual launches in previous episodes, which is what separates this from routine sabre-rattling. The transmission channel runs through Brent's geopolitical premium, freight and war-risk insurance on Gulf and Red Sea transits, and, where shipping is involved, the tanker and container rerouting that steepens voyage costs. The conditional framing, a response only if Washington enters, places the next tell in the US posture: whether reported Saudi requests for American support are accepted, and whether carrier or air-defence deployments follow. Subsequent cues are claims of responsibility for any launch, Saudi and US confirmation or denial of interceptions, and any disruption notices from facility operators. As with comparable standoffs, the premium tends to build on escalation of language and leak out on a quiet tape.