U.S. Officials Deny Leaked Military Plans; The Atlantic Unveils Yemen Operation Discussions

U.S. officials deny claims of shared classified military plans on Signal chat, following a report by The Atlantic detailing discussions on a Yemen operation. In a private group with senior officials, concerns about a military strike were raised before execution. The controversy has intensified discussions around media ethics and national security.

Top officials in the United States, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, have refuted claims that classified military plans were disclosed through a private Signal messaging group, following a report by The Atlantic. This report details discussions regarding a U.S. military operation in Yemen. The officials criticized The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, labeling him as “anti-Trump” and “sensationalist,” suggesting bias in his reporting. Amidst the fallout, Goldberg released the complete Signal chat transcript, asserting its authenticity and indicating a serious security breach.

The Signal group, titled “Houthi PC Small Group,” was allegedly established by National Security Adviser Michael Waltz and comprised of several high-ranking U.S. officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and others. The discussions initiated by Waltz were focused on coordinating military actions over the subsequent 72 hours following that morning’s Situation Room briefing.

In the conversations, Vice President JD Vance expressed reservations about proceeding with the military strike, cautioning that it could disrupt the administration’s commitments related to Europe and potentially increase oil prices. He preferred to delay the strike for up to a month, ultimately yielding to the prevailing opinion among officials. CIA Director John Ratcliffe agreed that further time would enhance intelligence on Houthi leadership.

Conversely, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth opposed the delay, warning that unanticipated leaks or actions such as an Israeli strike could leave the U.S. at a tactical disadvantage. He emphasized the urgency of executing the strike to ensure navigational freedom and deter threats, stating, “We are prepared to execute. If I had the final decision, I would say go ahead.”

The timeline shared in the Signal messages details the operational plan, including the launch of F/A-18 Super Hornets and MQ-9 Reaper drones. Subsequent strikes successfully eliminated the primary target, a senior Houthi commander, leading to positive acknowledgments from officials involved. Following the verification of the chat’s authenticity, Goldberg departed the group, and The Atlantic confirmed minimal redactions in the released content.

In response to the report’s release, Hegseth took to social media, challenging the characterization of the conversation as a “war plan.” He pointed out the absence of specific names, targets, and classified information within the disclosed materials, asserting that they did not constitute legitimate military plans. He opined, “This only proves one thing: Jeff Goldberg has never seen a war plan or an ‘attack plan.’ Not even close.”

As of now, the White House has refrained from further comments regarding the publication of the transcript. Nonetheless, the leak has amplified discussions surrounding governmental transparency, media ethics, and national security amidst a pivotal election period.

This article discusses the denial of allegations by U.S. officials regarding the leakage of classified military plans in a Signal messaging group, following a report by The Atlantic. It sheds light on the internal discussions about a U.S. military operation in Yemen, highlighting essential concerns voiced by key figures. The outcome has sparked ongoing debates about transparency and national security, particularly in the context of an upcoming election.

Original Source: www.business-standard.com