US issues warning on heightened threat of attacks by Iran
The agency said Iran has a longstanding commitment to strike American government officials following the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in 2020, but the attacks on Iran will likely amplify that commitment.
In addition, officials said they could trigger more anti-Semitic attacks in the United States.
"Multiple recent Homeland terrorist attacks have been motivated by anti-Semitic or anti-Israel sentiment, and the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict could contribute to US-based individuals plotting additional attacks," the advisory issued at noon ET said.
The United States struck three nuclear facilities in Iran in a stealth bombing raid that began on June 21. Using so-called bunker-buster bombs for the first time in such a military operation, B-2 bombers were used in the mission targeting Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz.
The attack, dubbed "Operation Midnight Hammer," involved more than 125 warplanes, submarines, and surface warships, Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters.
How serious is the alert?
The Homeland Security advisory warning lasts for 90 days through Sept. 22. "The Iranian Government has publicly condemned direct US involvement in the conflict," the advisory noted.
Additionally, the advisory said that U.S. law enforcement "has disrupted multiple potentially lethal Iranian-backed plots in the United States since 2020" and also warns "the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict could also motivate violent extremists and hate crime perpetrators seeking to attack targets perceived to be Jewish, pro-Israel, or linked to the US government or military in the Homeland."
The likelihood of violent extremists in the United States independently mobilizing to carry out attacks could increase with the issuance of a religious ruling calling for retaliatory violence in the United States.
During a Pentagon briefing on June 21, Caine said the United States is now on "high alert" for any retaliation from Tehran after the strikes on Iran.
"Our forces remain on high alert and are fully postured to respond to any Iranian retaliation or proxy attacks, which would be an incredibly poor choice," Caine said. "We will defend ourselves. The safety of our service members and civilians remains our highest priority."
Waiting game?: Iran almost certainly will retaliate against the U.S. But when, where and how?
What happened to Soleimani?
Soleimani was killed at Baghdad International Airport in Iraq in a U.S. drone strike ordered by President Donald Trump in January 2020.
The Defense Department said it conducted the attack at Trump's direction as a "defensive action" against Soleimani, who the Pentagon said was planning further attacks. At the time of his death, the Pentagon said Soleimani and his troops were "responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more."
As a top military leader, Soleimani was considered an influential figure inside Iran. He headed Iran's elite Quds Force, part of the country's hard-line paramilitary Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The unit oversaw Iran's overseas operations and was considered by U.S. officials to be a foreign terrorist organization.
In 2018, Soleimani called Trump a "gambler" and said: "You will start the war, but we will end it."
During his June 21 address announcing the United States' bombing of Iranian nuclear sites, Trump mentioned Soleimani by name.
"For 40 years, Iran has been saying, 'Death to America, Death to Israel.' They have been killing our people, blowing off their arms, blowing off their legs with roadside bombs. That was their specialty," Trump said. "We lost over 1,000 people, and hundreds of thousands throughout the Middle East and around the world have died as a direct result of their hate.
"In particular, so many were killed by their General Qasem Soleimani," Trump added. "I decided a long time ago that I would not let this happen. It will not continue."
Iranian hacktivists may want to 'unhinge our society'
The Homeland Security advisory said that both hacktivists and Iranian government-affiliated actors "routinely target poorly secured U.S. networks and Internet-connected devices for disruptive cyber attacks."
These disruptors are pretty sophisticated and may be ready to strike, said Gregory Falco, a Cornell University engineering professor and cybersecurity expert, told USA TODAY.
"It's an informal army of its own, so to speak," Falco said. "Iran goes after things where there could be serious implications for society; They want to unhinge our society."
Falco said the hacktivists will likely target electric grids, dams and water treatment plants, hospitals, and space infrastructure.
"I think this is what we will see first," Falco said. "These systems are relatively poorly protected compared to military and defense capabilities, and they could have significant collateral damage when attacked."
Falco believes some of those hackers might already be lurking around in those critical infrastructure networks.
"They generally are not doing anything, they are quietly hanging out there and they are waiting to pounce when ready," Falco said. "It doesn't take long for them to take action; it takes long for them to get inside those systems."
Falco said the Iranian hackers are persistent and pervasive, noting their cyber operations are highly effective.
"Iran isn't going to take this attack quietly," Falco said.
Operation Midnight Hammer: Details of the US bombing in Iran
US law enforcement agencies are on alert after US attacks on Iran
Several law enforcement agencies around the United States are deploying additional forces to protect potential targets from retaliatory attacks.
The New York Police Department, the nation's largest police department, said it issued an advisory and more resources hours after the June 21 attack.
"Out of an abundance of caution, we're deploying additional resources to religious, cultural, and diplomatic sites across NYC and coordinating with our federal partners. We'll continue to monitor for any potential impact to NYC," the police department said.
In Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass echoed a similar message regarding the city's police department.
"There are no known credible threats at this time and out of an abundance of caution, LAPD is stepping up patrols near places of worship, community gathering spaces, and other sensitive sites," Bass said in a statement. "We will remain vigilant in protecting our communities."
Meanwhile, the Michigan State Police reminded community members to be on alert amid concerns about retaliation after the strikes, the Detroit Free Press, part of the USA TODAY Network, reported.
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said in a social media post that she called for a briefing with the Michigan National Guard and the Michigan State Police after the U.S. military strikes.
"We're monitoring the situation in Iran closely and taking steps to keep Michiganders safe," Whitmer said.
Civil rights organizations are also monitoring the situation
Some civil rights organizations are also monitoring the situation after the U.S. strike on the Iranian regime's nuclear sites.
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said the ADL's Center on Extremism will continue to monitor extremist responses and potential threats against the Jewish community.
"We are engaged with elected officials in Washington D.C., and across the country to ensure the safety of the Jewish community is a top priority," Greenblatt said in a statement. "We will also continue to work closely with law enforcement and our communal partners to ensure Jewish communities around the globe are safe."
Meanwhile, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, blasted Trump's attack as an "illegal and unjustified act of war" that favors the wishes of Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu over the American people and threatens to drag the United States into a wider conflict.
"We condemn President Trump's illegal and unjustified act of war against Iran,"CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awadsaid in a statement. "This attack, carried out under pressure from the out-of-control Israeli government, took place despite the longstanding conclusion by our nation's intelligence community that Iran was not seeking nuclear weapons."
"Just as President Bush started a disastrous war in Iraq pushed by war hawks, neoconservatives, and Israeli leaders like Netanyahu, President Trump has attacked Iran based on the same type of false information put forward by those who consistently seek to drag our nation into unnecessary and catastrophic wars," Awad said.
Contributing: Kim Hjelmgaard, USA TODAY
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
15 minutes ago
- Reuters
Hague NATO summit aims to focus on Trump's spending goal but Iran looms large
THE HAGUE, June 23 (Reuters) - The NATO alliance has crafted a summit in The Hague this week to shore itself up by satisfying U.S. President Donald Trump with a big new defence spending goal - but it now risks being dominated by the repercussions of his military strikes on Iran. The two-day gathering is also intended to signal to Russian President Vladimir Putin that NATO is united, despite Trump's previous criticism of the alliance, and determined to expand and upgrade its defences to deter any attack from Moscow. The summit and its final statement are meant to be short and focused on heeding Trump's call to spend 5% of GDP on defence - a big jump from the current 2% goal. It is to be achieved by investing more in both militaries and other security-related spending. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, however, upset NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's preparations on Sunday as he declared Madrid did not need to meet the new spending target even as Spain approved the summit statement. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has had to settle for a seat at the pre-summit dinner on Tuesday evening - rather than a formal session with the leaders when they meet on Wednesday - due to his volatile relationship with Trump. The U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear sites at the weekend makes the summit much less predictable than Rutte - a former prime minister of the Netherlands hosting the gathering in his home city - and other NATO member countries would like. Much will depend on the precise situation in the Middle East when the summit takes place - such as whether Iran has retaliated against the U.S. - and whether other NATO leaders address the strikes with Trump or in comments to reporters. If the meeting does not go to plan, NATO risks appearing weak and divided, just as European members confront what they see as their biggest threat since the end of the Cold War - Russia - while bracing for possible U.S. troop cuts on the continent. Under the new defence spending plan, countries would spend 3.5% of GDP on "core defence" - essentially, weapons and troops - and a further 1.5% on security-related investments such as adapting roads, ports and bridges for use by military vehicles, protecting pipelines and deterring cyber-attacks. Such an increase - to be phased in over 10 years - would mean hundreds of billions of dollars more spending on defence. Last year, alliance members collectively spent about 2.6% of NATO GDP on core defence, amounting to about $1.3 trillion, according to NATO estimates. The lion's share came from the United States, which spent almost $818 billion. Washington has insisted it is time for Europeans to take on more of the financial and military burden of defending their continent. European leaders say they have got that message but want an orderly and gradual transition, fearful that any gaps in their defences could be exploited by Putin. They are particularly keen to stress their spending commitment as Trump has previously threatened not to protect allies that do not spend enough on defence. A prepared text summit statement agreed by NATO governments and seen by Reuters says: "We reaffirm our ironclad commitment to collective defence as enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty - that an attack on one is an attack on all." As part of their efforts to keep Trump onside, NATO officials have shunted difficult topics to the sidelines of the summit or kept them off the agenda altogether. While many European nations see Russia as an ever-growing threat, Trump has expressed a desire for better economic relations with Moscow - a prospect that Europeans think would help Russia to strengthen its military and threaten them more. Similarly, many Europeans are deeply wary of Trump's moves to lessen Russia's diplomatic isolation as part of his efforts to secure a deal to end the war in Ukraine. The brief summit statement will include just one reference to Russia as a threat to Euro-Atlantic security and another to allies' commitment to supporting Ukraine, diplomats say.
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
In the wake of Trump's strikes on Iran, what are Keir Starmer's options?
The choices Keir Starmer makes in the next few days could define his premiership. Tony Blair never escaped the accusation he had been George Bush 's 'poodle' over the invasion of Iraq. And how far the current Labour PM goes in backing another US president in another foreign conflict could help or haunt him for years to come. Despite the prime minister last week repeatedly saying ' de-escalation is the priority ', the Trump administration pressed ahead with strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran overnight on Saturday. The prime is now walking a tightrope between supporting the UK's closest ally and attempting to call for calm. In the wake of the strikes, Sir Keir appeared to give the US his cautious backing – describing Iran's nuclear programme as a 'grave threat to international security'. But he has also issued stark warnings about the conflict escalating beyond the region. As the situation in the Middle East continues to escalate, the prime minister is caught between a rock and a hard place. He is currently sat firmly on the fence - with his most senior ministers refusing to say whether Trump's strikes were either legal or even 'the right thing to do'. And while the US did not ask Britain for help in its first round of strikes, at some point, the prime minister will be forced to make a decision. So what are his options? One option – albeit the most diplomatically tricky – is to withhold support entirely. Sir Keir has spent months trying to build a special relationship with President Trump. Anything less than support for their actions is likely to go down badly in the White House. However, the Attorney General Lord Hermer, a close political ally of Sir Keir, is reported to have raised legal concerns about any potential British involvement in the conflict beyond defending its allies. Lord Hermer is reportedly reluctant to sign off any offensive operations, with a source telling The Spectator: 'The AG has concerns about the UK playing any role in this except for defending our allies.' The weight the Labour leader places on his old friend's legal judgement could limit the extent of any support for the US, if Trump does decide to act militarily. The PM's own background will also play a role in the decision. The energy minister Miatta Fahnbulleh said on Thursday that he 'who is a lawyer and a human rights lawyer, he will obviously do everything that is in accord with international law.' But will he really risk infuriating President Trump at a time when the Republican's tariffs on goods entering the US have already led economists to downgrade their forecasts for the UK economy? Another option, considered the most likely, is to allow the use of the UK-US airbase at Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands. On Saturday, Trump's strikes on Iran were launched directly without the use of the Diego Garcia base. But in future military actions, the US may ask Britain's permission to use the joint airbase in the Chagos archipelago. The type of B-2 stealth bombers which are often based there are the ones that are capable of carrying specialised 'bunker buster' bombs which were used in the operation over the weekend. This is a middle ground seen as the most likely option for the UK government to back. It would not require action from the UK, but could protect the relationship with the US by seeming to offer support. He is already under pressure over the issue at home. Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel has said the UK should give permission for the US to use Diego Garcia to launch bunker-buster bombs. One step beyond the Diego Garcia option is to provide logistical support to the US, and what that would look like in practice is being wargamed in Whitehall. The benefit of this option is that it would allow the UK to appear to be more supportive of Present Trump than just simply allowing him to use a US airbase, and at the same time risking only a limited response from Iran. The UK is keen not to allow Tehran a pretext to strike British bases or interests and has sent extra assets to the region, with another six Typhoon jets sent to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, joining the eight already there. The final option, considered the least likely, is full UK military intervention. Britain is still pushing hard behind the scenes for a de-escalation in the Middle East. The UK's most favoured outcome is a diplomatic solution, in which both sides dial down the aggression. Keir Starmer is also, as a politician, a gradualist and as such is considered less likely than some of his predecessors as prime minister to commit the UK military to support this kind of intervention, even if it is in the aid of one of our key allies, the United States.
The National
16 minutes ago
- The National
David Lammy refuses to say if US Iran strikes were illegal
The US attacked three sites in Iran at the weekend, inserting itself into Israel's war aimed at destroying the country's nuclear programme. Asked about the lawfulness of the strikes on Monday, the Foreign Secretary told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that as the UK was "not involved" it was "for the Americans to discuss those issues". It was put to him that the UK Government had a firm view on whether Russia attacking Ukraine was legal, which he said was not a 'moral equivalence'. READ MORE: Kenny MacAskill: Donald Trump bombing Iran is illegal and insane He said: 'There isn't a moral equivalence here'. He added it had been "crystal clear' that Moscow invaded a sovereign nation. When it was put to him that it was extraordinary he could not answer the question as critics argue Iran is also a sovereign nation which was attacked without warning, he said: 'I don't think it is extraordinary because this was not the UK's action, we were not involved, we were clear when this began and Israel's attacks began that we were not involved… so I don't say it's not legitimate, but I can tell you as Foreign Secretary that we were not involved.' Lammy added that Iran has to 'get serious about the off-ramp that is being made available to them' and that 'ultimately this can only be dealt with in diplomacy.' (Image: Kin Cheung) The Foreign Secretary said Donald Trump's action 'may well have set back Iran several years', and enrichment of uranium at 60% cannot be allowed to 'slide'. Trump has floated the possibility of leadership change in Iran, hours after his team said replacing the Iranian government was not the aim of US attacks. Iran's military has vowed a "decisive response" after Trump said US strikes caused "monumental damage" to Iranian nuclear sites. The UN's nuclear watchdog has called for a ceasefire in order to inspect the damage. Asked about Trump's posts on Truth Social about regime change in Tehran, Lammy said: 'There will be further tweets on many issues over the next three-and-a-half years of Donald Trump's leadership that you will be discussing… the rhetoric is strong but actually I can tell you, having spoken to the Secretary of State, having sat in the White House, that this is targeted action to deal with Iran's nuclear capability.' READ MORE: UK providing 'political cover' for US and Israel after Iran attack He added: 'I'm very conscious that when I met colleagues in the White House on Thursday that they were considering all of the options… we knew that, you knew that as journalists. And Donald Trump made a decision to act to degrade that capability. "It may well have set back Iran by several years. That was a decision that he took.' Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Iran's nuclear programme is a 'grave threat' which the US military action would 'alleviate'. He has been accused of providing "political cover" for Israel and the US. The US attacked three sites in Iran including the Fordo facility, which is buried deep underground. In an address to the nation from the White House, Trump warned there could be further strikes if Iran retaliates. Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi warned the attacks 'will have everlasting consequences' and that Tehran 'reserves all options' to retaliate.
