Top US officials shared Yemen strike plans with journalist in group chat
Posted by Gerard on March 24, 2025, 8:53 pm
"The White House has confirmed that a journalist inadvertently was added to a group chat in which US national security officials planned a strike against the Houthi rebel group.
Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, reported, external on Monday that he was added to a Signal message group which included accounts labelled as White House National Security Adviser Michael Waltz and Vice-President JD Vance.
"At this time, the message thread that was reported appears to be authentic," Brian Hughes, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said in a statement to the BBC. "We are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain.
"The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy co-ordination between senior officials," he said.
President Donald Trump told reporters on Monday afternoon that he was not aware of the Atlantic magazine article.
On 15 March, the US launched what it described as a "decisive and powerful" series of air strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.
Four days earlier, on 11 March, Goldberg writes that he received a connection request on the encrypted messaging app Signal from an account that purported to be Mr Waltz's.
Signal is used by journalists and Washington officials because of the secure nature of its communications, the ability to create aliases, and sent disappearing messages.
Two days later, Goldberg said he was added to a Signal chat entitled "Houthi PC small group."
A number of accounts that appeared to belong to cabinet members and national security officials were included in the chat, Goldberg reported.
Accounts labelled "JD Vance," the name of the vice-president; "Pete Hegseth," the Defence Secretary; and "John Ratcliffe," the director of the Central Intelligence Agency; were among names in the chat. Top national security officials from various agencies also appeared to be added.
At one point during the communication over the strikes, the account labelled "JD Vance" seemed to disagree with Trump, Goldberg reported.
"I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now," the Vance account wrote at approximately 8:15 on 14 March.
"There's a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices.
"I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself.
"But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc."
In a statement to the BBC on Monday, Vance spokesman William Martin said the vice-president "unequivocally supports this administration's foreign policy.
"The president and the vice-president have had subsequent conversations about this matter and are in complete agreement," Martin said.
Goldberg writes that he initially "had very strong doubts that this text group was real, because I could not believe that the national-security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans."
Yet Mr Goldberg reports he continued to watch the conversation play out.
On 15 March, he writes that he was sitting in a supermarket car park, watching Signal communications about a strike.
When Mr Goldberg checked X for updates about Yemen, he wrote, he saw reports of explosions in the capital city of Sanaa.
The Trump administration did launch strikes on 15 March. In a Truth Social post, Trump wrote that "Funded by Iran, the Houthi thugs have fired missiles at US aircraft, and targeted our Troops and Allies".
The president wrote that the Houthis' "piracy, violence, and terrorism" had cost "billions" and put lives at risk.
A Houthi official posted on X that 53 people had been killed, the BBC reported.
Publicly, Trump administration officials fanned out on television to speak about the strikes.
"We just hit them with overwhelming force and put Iran on notice that enough is enough," Waltz said on ABC News.
Goldberg reports that the officials also discussed the potential for Europe to pay for US protection of key shipping lanes.
"Whether it's now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes," the account associated with Waltz wrote on 14 March.
Duran, Nima and Nap .. i.e. oopsie daisy from the US admin and thus interesting input from The Atlantic.
Btw, from the article, Russians will never agree on the US monitoring the shipping lanes. Also old info (14th March) and pure fantasy. That is why they are having the meeting in Riyadh, to iron out the 'grain deal'. Russians will want to inspect the ships for armaments since Erdogan didn't do that in the last 'grain deal'. I guess RF still trusted him then
Re: Good call. This certainly has been discussed on several platforms ..
Not sure if you meant that Russians are the pay masters .. and him being Erdogan?
Assuming this is what you meant, Turkey's interest is to continue being the gas hub in Europe for Russians since they (Turkey) get the transit fees. In other words it's a lucrative deal for Erdogan and thus Russians are his pay-masters from that perspective.
Re: Good call. This certainly has been discussed on several platforms ..
No they're not at least not under the ISIS oil buy protocol..
I am sorry, but your comment is quite opaque. Needs elaboration.
ISIS oil buy protocol..
If you are referring to stealing of oil in Syria, protected by Kurds and all that and under septic (US) auspices, Erdogan is also very much game. Corrupt as you can get. Nevertheless, I think he is in trouble in Syria .. he has bitten more than he can chew. We wait.
Re: Good call. This certainly has been discussed on several platforms ..
I think you misunderstand..I know that Tony what's-his-face was being spanked for the Gulf incident by being forced to negotiate with ISIS (who have not gone away), .. and that was under state Dept. orders (essentially), the Russian business is more opaque to me but it has always been said that Erdogan plays a dangerous double-game (more dangerous for him internally than externally), ..
Re: Good call. This certainly has been discussed on several platforms ..
Of course. When presented with a word-salad I tried to make sense of it .. on my terms. Next time try to make sure you are understood by explaining your stance in simple (unloaded) terms. Best advice I can think of ..
on March 24, 2025, 8:53 pm