There are quite a few reasons for the U.S. to stand down, in fact. I'll list just a few:
1. These aren't U.S. ships being attacked.
2. These ships aren't owned by U.S. companies.
3. These ships aren't transporting cargo to or from U.S. ports.
4. The U.S. is one of the only countries in the world that has refused to ratify the current United Nations "open seas" treaty.
I put these four facts together, and I would conclude that the U.S. has no legal or diplomatic justification for dealing with any "active threats" to foreign civilian ships in the Red Sea.
I'll take it one step further and point out that these threads on FR are filled with the kind of globalist slop that is incompatible with any understanding of the U.S. as a free, independent and sovereign nation. It's disturbing to see so-called "conservatives" on this website who are perfectly fine with this scenario:
A. Chase many of our major manufacturing industries overseas.
B. Make large swaths of America destitute in the process.
C. Chase all our maritime shipping companies overseas, too.
D. So now we have U.S. taxpayers footing the bill for the U.S. Navy to protect Danish ships ... flying Panamanian or Liberian flags ... with crews of Filipino sailors ... delivering that cheap Chinese crap to your local Walmart and Dollar General stores.
You can’t possibly keep a straight face if you think this makes any sense at all.
The Houthi's are in fact, attacking U.S. positions in the Middle-East, including U.S. Navy vessels.
To date, we've elected to only destroy their missiles in flight rather than at their source.
The fact that we chose to protect other flagged civilian ships in international waters and then conduct a half-assed mission was my objection.
It isn't as though the U.S. has no valid interests in maintaining international shipping routes, especially when those threats have actively engaged U.S. troops.