The security breach involving senior US officials inadvertently adding The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a Signal group chat has sparked outrage over the recklessness of handling classified information.
The group included Vice President JD Vance, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and others. The officials discussed sensitive military operations against Houthi militias in Yemen. The messages exchanged detailed operational plans, including targets, weapons and attack sequences.
Mr Goldberg reported receiving this information firsthand, highlighting vulnerabilities in using personal apps like Signal for sensitive government communications, despite their end-to-end encryption.
The National Security Council confirmed the authenticity of the messages and is investigating how this breach occurred.
President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House that he was unaware of the incident, while Mr Hegseth downplayed its significance, denying that sensitive war plans were discussed. Mr Waltz may need to be forced out, according to a Politico report.
The leaked conversation provides a rare, unfiltered look at the Trump administration’s strategic thinking – one that reveals gaps in addressing issues in the Middle East and beyond. This includes miscalculating enemies’ capabilities and taking a transactional approach with allies.
One of the oversights in the conversation is the administration’s misreading of the Houthis, the Iran-backed militant group responsible for attacking Red Sea shipping. The discussion suggests that officials assume targeted US strikes will deter further aggression.
Mr Waltz’s account on Signal described the operation as an “amazing job”, per Mr Goldberg. Other officials praised it as well.
However, history shows that the Houthis have repeatedly adapted to external attacks, using asymmetric warfare tactics to outlast far stronger adversaries.
With Iranian support and a decentralised structure, they are not easily subdued by conventional deterrence strategies.
“The current Trump team is bound above all by fealty to the ‘America First’ principle. This ideological underpinning of Trump’s foreign policy appears to blind them to the realities on the ground: namely, that the Houthis have long been able to sustain bombing campaigns by external actors and that a military approach to the Houthi threat is fruitless without a corresponding diplomatic component that addresses the war in Gaza,” Middle East analyst and former Pentagon adviser Jasmine El Gamal told The National.
Despite previous US and allied strikes, the Houthis have continued to refine their missile and drone capabilities, expanding their operational reach beyond Yemen’s borders. Observers argue that the Houthis may perceive US strikes not as a deterrent but as provocation, justifying further attacks.
Houthis have escalated their military operations shortly after the Hamas October 7, 2023 assault, primarily targeting international shipping routes in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. These attacks, initially framed as a response to Israel's war in Gaza, have since evolved into a broader campaign aimed at disrupting global trade and challenging US and allied naval dominance in the region.
An overlooked strategic factor
The Signal thread also implied that Cairo would automatically align with Washington’s objectives, but it ignored Egypt’s own strategic and economic considerations.
Egypt’s primary concern is the security of the Suez Canal. Analysts say that unlike the US, which may prioritise deterring the Houthis as part of its broader confrontation with Iran, Egypt is focused on maintaining trade flow by pressing a wider regional de-escalation, including an end to the Gaza war.
“The US administration appears to under-appreciate the complexity of securing the Red Sea and associated maritime chokepoints,” Neil Quilliam, associate fellow with the Middle East and North Africa Programme at the UK-based Chatham House think tank, told The National.
“It is unable to connect the dots between freedom of navigation of international waterways and trade flows from Asia to Europe to the US and shows an astounding naivety of the interdependency of the global economy. The Suez Canal is not only critical to global trade, but is also an essential source of income for Egypt, which is in dire economic straits."
Ms El Gamal says that the chat outlines what we can expect from the US administration moving forward: “a preference for unilateral action, even when it comes to issues of shared security interests like the Suez Canal.”
“There’s a lack of appreciation for traditional allies’ concerns, and a military-focused strategy – 'peace through strength' – that is already proving to be short-sighted and alienating,” she said.
While the discussion focuses on targeting the Houthis militarily, it neglects the long-term implications of instability in this vital waterway and the financial burden on the US.
According to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, it costs $6.5 million per day, or about $2.3 billion a year, to operate a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and its associated support ships and aircraft during peacetime. These costs rise significantly in wartime.
The US is preparing for a major escalation in the Red Sea against the Houthis with the expected deployment of a second nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which the US Naval Institute says will be the USS Carl Vinson. It will join the USS Harry S Truman, another Nimitz class aircraft carrier in the Red Sea.
Transactional mindset
In the chat, the officials discuss what the US should receive in return, rather than framing the defence of international shipping lanes as a shared security interest.
Senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller said in the thread: “As I heard it, the president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We also need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement. Eg: if Europe doesn’t remunerate, then what? If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.”
Experts believe this echoes Trump-era foreign policy trends, where alliances are treated as business deals rather than strategic partnerships.
“It is absolutely clear from the exchange of messages that the administration is no longer motivated by loyalty or shared interests with partners but views the world in terms of transactions where there is no global public good, only a price to pay for its friendship,” said Mr Quilliam.
“In fact, the US administration now views Europe and the Middle East on a par and bases relations with both on monetary value, rather than strategic interests."
