Details: The UAE, which has driven a military campaign that encircled the port and city, describes the Stockholm meeting as a “last chance” for the Houthis.

• If the UAE is not satisfied with the outcome, they threaten to dispatch Yemeni forces poised on the outskirts of Hodeidah to take the port, arguing that this would deprive the Houthis of a critical revenue stream and thus force them to compromise.
• This could happen as early as the coming holiday season, when the world is distracted.

To prevent this outcome, one of two things must happen: Either UN envoy Martin Griffiths negotiates a deal under which Hodeidah comes under UN control (something the Houthis have signaled openness to); or Saudi Arabia’s and the UAE’s Western allies pressure them not to launch the offensive.

• Despite calling for a cease-fire last month, however, the Trump administration has done nothing to achieve it and instead doubled down on its support for Saudi Arabia.

What to watch: In the wake of the Nov. 29 Senate vote to advance a resolution ending U.S. participation in the conflict — and with anger growing at Saudi Arabia’s prosecution of the war, its murder of Jamal Khashoggi, and Trump's complacent approach to both — it has become more likely that Congress will force the administration's hand, lest the U.S. be viewed as complicit in the impending famine.

Robert Malley is president and CEO of the International Crisis Group. Peter Salisbury is a senior analyst on Yemen with the group.

Yes, but: Doing so could be challenging given how profoundly Democrats resent what they see as hard-sought alignment with an unfit leader. Foreign leaders in that group might have to start thinking about recalibrating their stances with an eye toward Democratic priorities. It might benefit Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, for example, to think about ending the Yemen war.

For leaders in the midst of negotiations with the U.S. — the European Union and China on trade, North Korea on its nuclear program — prospects of an abbreviated-term, one-term, or otherwise weakened president could prompt them to drive a harder bargain. That could be because they believe Trump now needs quick results, or because they would prefer to await his successor’s arrival.

Countries targeted by the U.S. — mainly Iran — could also decide to wait Trump out. What they will interpret as the growing possibility of a one-term president makes it easier for Tehran to bide its time, hunker down even as sanctions ramp up, ignore Trump's violations of the Iran deal, and refuse any offers to renegotiate a new one in the hopes that a Democrat will rejoin in 2021.

The bottom line: Other countries can’t rely on their predictions: Far from being more compromising, in fact, the president might harden his stance against the world and instigate a foreign crisis to play to his base and change the subject. After adjusting to an unpredictable president, world leaders now must figure out how to deal with a weakened and wounded one.

Robert Malley is president and CEO of the International Crisis Group.

Differences exist within the Trump team, but all agree that an Iran under severe economic pressure is better than an Iran that's not. There seems to be a spectrum of views within the administration about possible desired outcomes:

• At minimum, the regime will have fewer resources to project its power in the region and will curb its activities in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon.
• Better yet, it might face serious internal unrest.
• Best possible, in their view, the unrest will lead to regime change.

Trump himself seems to think that Iran will come begging for a new deal; others are more skeptical. But the strategy is straightforward: Raise the heat and see what will happen.

Reality check: The administration's desired outcomes face long odds. Historically, there is little evidence that Iran’s economic performance correlates with its regional policy. For four decades, Iran has engaged in activities it deems central to its national security, however severe the sanctions and economic hardship it bears. As for regime change, the U.S. track record in the Middle East speaks for itself: Whether in Afghanistan, Libya or Iran itself, U.S. efforts have never met expectations and typically backfire.

Against the low probability of altering Iran's behavior, changing its regime or initiating negotiations on a new deal, the potential negative consequences are manifold. Facing economic warfare, Iran might use proxies against the U.S. presence in Iraq and Syria or violate the nuclear deal, forcing the U.S. to decide whether to use military force to halt its progress. The more effective U.S. sanctions are, the likelier these scenarios become.

The bottom line: The Trump administration undoubtedly will succeed in hurting Iran. It’s far less clear if it will be helping itself.

Robert Malley is president and CEO of the International Crisis Group.