[Salon] THE SIGNAL LEAK AND THE BOMBING OF YEMEN




The attacks on the Houthis shows that Trump is still set on targeting Iran
͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­
View in browser

THE SIGNAL LEAK AND THE BOMBING OF YEMEN

The attacks on the Houthis shows that Trump is still set on targeting Iran

Apr 3
Paid
 
READ IN APP
 
US warplanes launched a series of airstrikes on Yemen, the Houthi group reported on March 28. / US Central Command handout/Anadolu via Getty Images.

It’s taken me two weeks to learn what Pentagon investigators now believe was the route that led to Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of Atlantic, getting the scoop of the year. It was the doing of a Defense Department aide who set up a fateful high-level group chat about a planned American bombing attack on Yemen and added Goldberg to the list of senior administration officials who would participate “initials only.” A more important question may be why the Trump administration’s top national security officials threw away the approved doctrine when it came to such sensitives issues as a planned bombing attack on Sanaa, the capital of Yemen and its largest city, as well as other sites and relied on Signal and not the most secure means of communication to discuss the top secret operational plan for a Navy bombing mission there.

The messages received by Goldberg included a timeline for the attack and the aircraft that were being deployed. Goldberg waited until a week after the mission took place to write a story for his magazine about the messages he received. The scandal of the leak was another blow to Hegseth and raised suspicions about Michael Waltz, Trump’s national security adviser. Waltz is not an amateur. He is a former Congressman and a former Army Special Forces officer, who worked under Vice President Dick Cheney in the second Bush administration. He was highly regarded by his peers then.

The current US bombing of Yemen has been in response to the Houthis’ long-standing ties to Iran and its support for the Palestinians of Gaza who have been under off-and-on Israeli air force attacks since the Hamas uprising of October 7, 2023. The Houthis stopped their at-sea strikes when a ceasefire was reached in January. Israel broke the ceasefire and renewed its bombing last month. The Houthis returned to attacking international shipping in the Red Sea. The Navy’s mission is to destroy the Houthi chain of command, located in Sanaa, and limit the effectiveness of renewed Houthi attacks at sea. The Navy aircraft have been limited to specific military targets in and near the city, although the Houthis have complained about the targeting of clearly marked civilian sites, including a yet to be completed cancer hospital near the border with Saudi Arabia. The Associated Press reported last week that the American bombing had shifted from targeting missile launch sites in the mountains to “firing at ranking [Houthi] personnel as well as dropping bombs on city neighborhoods.” The British group Airwars, which focuses on Western airstrikes, was quoted: “Just because you can’t see civilian harm doesn’t mean it’s not happening.” The AP quoted a Houthi official saying that at least fifty-seven people had been killed.

President Trump issued a bellicose message after authorizing the renewed bombing in Yemen on March 15, declaring that further Houthi attacks on international shipping at sea “will not be tolerated. We will use overwhelming lethal force until we have achieved our objective. The Houthis have choked off shipping in one of most important Waterways of the world, grinding vast swaths of global commerce to a halt, and attacking the core principle of Freedom of Navigation.” He added a special warning to the leadership of Iran: “Support for the Houthi terrorists must end IMMEDIATELY! Do NOT threaten the American people, their President . . . BEWARE, because America will hold you fully accountable and, we won’t be nice about it.”

As for the use of Signal when dealing with sensitive national security information, such as a planned bombing raid on Yemen, I asked someone who knew of the raid and its importance to the Trump administration. He replied, at length:

There are five glaring problems with the Signal chat:

1) Even if we assume that the end-to-end encryption used by Signal is robust enough, we know that personal cell phones are exceedingly vulnerable to being hacked. Russian, Chinese, or Iranian hackers would not have tried to breach the Signal’s encryption, but rather the personal cell phones used by the chat’s participants. And the minute you plant spyware (like Israel-made Pegasus) on someone’s phone, anything and everything on that phone, including Signal chats, is exposed.

2) The participants may have used their hack-resistant government-issued phones, but this is unlikely, since these phones are usually used when using the government-authorized, hack-resistant, secure communication system. Each of the participants in the chat had access to both government-issued phones and to the government secure communication system in their offices. [Vice President JD] Vance, Hegseth, [Director of National Intelligence Tulsi] Gabbard, and [CIA Director John] Ratcliffe also have secure rooms in their residences, and their cars are equipped to allow for secure communication when driving.

3) Even when using government-issued phones on a government-secure communication system, there is one thing you never—but never—do: disclose the details of military attack plans before the attack commences. Never. Moreover, you always apply the need-to-know rule when discussing attack plans: Vance and Ratcliffe should be informed that an attack on Yemen is about to take place—but they most certainly don’t need to know the number and type planes and missiles to be employed, the kind of ammunition to be used, or the targets to be attacked. Hegseth violated this need-to-know rule by sharing the attack plans with the group. An insecure show-off trying to impress others by spilling military secrets.

4) Israeli officials bitterly complained that the Signal chat included sensitive intelligence Israel provided to the US from a human intelligence source in Yemen. The Signal chat messages published by Goldberg may not have compromised the effectiveness of the airstrike, given Goldberg's restraint on releasing the information, but it did compromise a human source who provided the intelligence to the Israelis, who then conveyed it to the US for targeting.

5) One of the attractions of Signal is that you can set it to erase any record of any conversation you had. It may thus be impossible to properly investigate this chat—or any previous one, if the group had similar chats in the past.

But there will be no investigation: AG Pam Bondi has already said that the case was closed and that it would not be investigated.

In sum:

Signal has not been authorized by the government as a platform on which classified information may be exchanged.

This means that all participating officials have violated several federal laws, including the National Security Act.

Moreover, the chat’s settings were configured to make messages disappear after several days. This is a violation of laws designed to preserve government records.

It was not necessary for these officials to conduct the chat on Signal. The senior officials taking part in the chat are all equipped with classified communication systems, secure vehicle lines, and dedicated staff to help safeguard sensitive communications.

This means that the deliberate, if inexplicable, decision to bypass these secure channels in favor of Signal is a glaring violation of security protocols.

There is one question none of the participants has answered so far: why were the secure communication channels—to which all the participants had easy access—voided in favor of a less secure channel?

Two participants were not in the US at the time of the call: Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff was in Moscow, and Gabbard was in Thailand. Both had no access to secure communication channels (although they could have gone to the US embassy in Moscow and Bangkok, respectively). It is not clear why it was necessary to have the two of them on the chat.

I asked a veteran US official about the international significance of the US attacks in Yemen, whose goal is eliminating the command and control of the Houthi forces now in Sanaa over their fellow soldiers who are spread throughout the mountains and caves to the east and south. Those fighters, operating in underground bunkers, have successfully launched Iranian-supplied missiles to attack commercial shipping in the Red Sea, but had to rely on target data from the senior command in Sanaa.

His answer: “Sanaa? A Trump message to Iran. The Israeli bombing? A message to Hamas. Netanyahu’s occupation of the Mount Herman lowlands? A message to Syria. Trump’s reaction to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s foot dragging? A message to Russian politicians.”

He was telling me what is in the ambitious and violent, if necessary, future foreign policy playbook, as of today, of Donald Trump. It begins, after Yemen, with Iran.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy Seymour Hersh, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

 
Like
Comment
Restack
 

© 2025 Seymour Hersh
Unsubscribe

Get the appStart writing



This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail (Mailman edition) and MHonArc.