Iran has "substantially increased" efforts to target U.S. personnel abroad, with plots to kill Americans reaching "advanced stages" in the Middle East and other countries, according to an intelligence memo obtained by Fox News.
The memo, sent Friday to Secretary of State Marco Rubio by Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton, comes just days after the State Department ordered non-emergency U.S. government employees and their family members to leave Saudi Arabia due to escalating attacks by Iran-backed Houthi rebels.
U.S. officials confirmed the authenticity of the unclassified intelligence memo, which was first reported by Axios.
"Specifically, through various channels, we have received intelligence that Iran has substantially increased efforts to target U.S. personnel," the memo states.
"The lethal plotting efforts by the Iranians against U.S. citizens have reached advanced stages in both the Middle East and certain other countries," the memo continues.
The memo also states that intelligence officials will work to downgrade the classification of certain intelligence so it can be disseminated and shared with State Department personnel.
A U.S. official told Fox News Digital that the government continually monitors and evaluates evolving security threats.
"When it comes to our staffing at embassies, we constantly evaluate new information about the security environment," the official said. "The threat of Houthi attacks and of Iranian terror plots targeting U.S. officials are informing our decisions on staffing adjustments for embassies on RO Status in the region."
The intelligence report on Iranian efforts to target U.S. diplomats and officials in the Middle East also comes as President Donald Trump continues to weigh another round of military strikes against Iran if Tehran does not reach an agreement with Washington.
Earlier this week, the State Department addressed reports that it directed nonessential government personnel and their dependents to leave the entire Gulf region, clarifying that the departure order applies only to Saudi Arabia.
State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said that any claims of a potential broader regional shutdown were "inaccurate."
"The U.S. Department of State issued an ordered departure for non-emergency U.S. government employees and their family members in Saudi Arabia," the department said.
The State Department previously renewed its warning to Americans traveling in and through the Middle East in late September.
The State Department told Fox News Digital that President Donald Trump's views on France are "spot on" after French President Emmanuel Macron criticized foreign leaders for making "unacceptable and stupid comments" about the protests rocking the European country.
Speaking at a midterms rally on Monday, Trump said that "the migrants have taken over France" and that the country should close its borders following a weekend of anti-government demonstrations that evolved into rioting and looting. He added that France, a "once great nation," is "being conquered, looted and burned to the ground by migrants, jihadists and communists who hate Christianity" and "the Western civilization itself."
Macron then claimed Wednesday that "there was foreign manipulation of information" following the protests, including AI-generated images that showed scenes that never happened in France, which gave way to "unacceptable and stupid comments from many people including foreign leaders." Macron said he was referring to Trump, "among others," and also mentioned, "We’ve had people claiming that we were invaded by hordes of migrants and Islamists, which is completely false," The Associated Press reported.
When asked for a reaction to Macron's remarks, State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott told Fox News Digital that Trump "is on point as he is consistently on point."
"He has been clear about the dangers of mass migration for years, especially since the beginning of this administration, but certainly long beforehand as well. The president has secured the border on day one when it comes to the United States of America," Pigott said. "But we've also been clear from the State Department's perspective that we are going to oppose international institutions, for example, that seek to impose an agenda upon sovereign nations to encourage mass migration.
"Mass migration is inherently destabilizing. It is inherently destabilizing. It is something that we don't believe solves problems, but actually creates problems. And this is something the president has raised time and time again. He's raised it in reaction to these recent protests," Pigott added.
"He's also raised it directly to world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly. Two years in a row raising this issue, calling for an end to the destructive policies of illegal amassed migration. Illegal amassed migration that, by the way, only helps criminal cartel groups. That's something we see in our own hemisphere, for example," Pigott continued. "The fact that cartel groups have traveled along these migration pathways. So the president is spot on, he's bringing attention to this issue, he is taking action to address this issue and, from the State Department's perspective, we have also taken concrete action to end the era of mass migration."
The Louvre and other major museums in Paris will be closed on Saturday as more protests are scheduled in the French capital, according to the AP. Reuters also reported that businesses in central Paris have started boarding up their windows over concerns of violence.
French officials said more than 3,000 shops were looted, and some 2,500 people were taken into police custody in connection to last weekend's nationwide protests.
"One of things that we really stress to Americans is that when they're traveling abroad, if they could please register for the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP). That program lets you tell us which countries you're going to so that we can provide real-time information to Americans in the country that have registered," Pigott told Fox News Digital.
"Speaking generally, when it comes to Americans that need assistance, we have personnel across the world at the State Department, at embassies and consulates that are working 24/7 to help the American people. If you have an issue when you're abroad, please contact the embassy or consulate," he added. "There are people that are there to help you that can provide information. Everything from a lost passport to responses to a security situation, that is something that is hugely important and a huge factor for the State Department."
President Donald Trump is holding back on sweeping new economic penalties Congress handed him to squeeze Russia.
He is betting that keeping those sanctions in reserve will help bring Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table, a strategy drawing criticism from Republican allies amid questions about whether Moscow believes he will ever use them.
Over roughly a week, the administration waived most of the new Russia sanctions and tariffs enacted last month while separately easing restrictions on Russian diesel exports, moves one foreign policy expert described as Trump's most significant effort yet to unwind economic pressure on Moscow.
"It's probably the biggest effort that the Trump administration has made to start unwinding the U.S. sanctions architecture that's been in place against Russia since 2022 or even earlier in some cases," Hal Brands, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, told Fox News Digital.
Trump argues that imposing the new penalties could drive Russia away from peace negotiations. But Brands said repeatedly holding back economic punishment risks convincing Putin that Washington is unwilling to follow through on its threats.
"The threat of imposition may lose some credibility if over a period of time you've demonstrated that you would prefer not to impose those penalties in the first place," Brands said.
The decision has drawn criticism from Republicans who helped advance the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act, including Trump allies who worked with his White House to pass it.
Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., who played a leading role in passing the legislation and joined Trump in the Oval Office when he signed it last month, said Tuesday the administration should be turning up economic pressure on Moscow.
"It is my belief that we need to use economic firepower to help drive Putin to the table," Britt told Semafor. "I believe that Russia is at the darkest point that they've been at in this entire war, and now is the time for us to turn up the pressure."
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., said Congress had coordinated the legislation's timing with the White House, making Trump's decision to waive most of its new penalties particularly surprising.
"This was an act of Congress that we had worked with the White House on," Capito said. "We had timed this to when the president and the White House felt it was a good time to move forward with this, where it could be effective."
Other Republicans were more blunt in their criticism.
"Beyond irresponsible," Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., wrote on X. "What part of enforcing a law passed 86-11 by the Senate does the President and his advisors not understand?"
"It's unconscionable that this administration is capitulating to a Russian dictator who illegally invaded Ukraine and butchers innocent civilians every single day," he added.
Sen. Darline Graham, R-S.C., the lead sponsor of the legislation named for her late brother and a Trump-endorsed candidate, said she would "choose to keep the pressure on Russia" because "I don't trust Putin and I don't trust Russia."
The Graham Act, signed into law in September, provided for steep tariffs targeting Russia and major purchasers of Russian energy, along with sanctions on Russian financial institutions and foreign entities doing significant business with them.
Congress also included presidential waiver authority, which Trump invoked to put most of the law's new Russia penalties on hold.
Brands said including a waiver was not necessarily a mistake, even if it ultimately allowed Trump to avoid imposing the penalties lawmakers had sought.
"It's really tough to craft a sanctions or tariffs bill that forces the president to do something, and typically you don't want to do that because there are always circumstances one can imagine in which you might want to be able to waive sanctions," he said.
Trump has defended his decision as necessary to keep Putin at the negotiating table.
"My decision on Russia is a very simple one. I am in the process of negotiating Peace in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and don't want to do anything that will drive, foolishly, Russia away from the bargaining table," Trump wrote Sunday.
In his formal certification to Congress, Trump said imposing the Graham Act penalties now "would impede ongoing U.S. efforts to negotiate a durable and comprehensive peace." He left open the possibility of imposing them later to "incentivize resolution" of the war.
Brands acknowledged that holding sanctions in reserve can give a president bargaining power, but questioned whether Putin believes Trump is prepared to follow through.
"The challenge is that it's been clear for about 18 months now, since Lindsey Graham started pushing this bill in the first place in the early parts of 2025, that the president simply doesn't have much appetite for squeezing the Russian energy export system to the degree that people like the late Senator Graham envisioned and desired," Brands said.
The administration has separately eased existing restrictions to allow more Russian diesel onto the market, a move intended to relieve pressure on global fuel prices.
Trump has criticized Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries, arguing they are straining diesel markets. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has described sanctions relief as a "carrot" that could encourage Russia to de-escalate.
Brands said the immediate financial benefit to Moscow from diesel relief is probably "fairly marginal." The more consequential decision, he argued, was Trump's refusal to activate the broader sanctions and tariffs Congress authorized.
"There's a potential for pretty serious pressure to be exerted if he had used both the sanctions authorities and essentially the secondary tariff authorities to go after purchasers of Russian energy products overseas," Brands said.
Such measures could "put a fairly significant squeeze on the Russian war economy" while discouraging other countries from doing business with Moscow, he added.
Brands acknowledged that squeezing Russian energy exports could further strain global energy markets when Trump is focused on lowering fuel prices at home.
But he argued that the larger risk lies in what Putin concludes about Washington's willingness to sustain economic pressure.
"Putin's theory of victory in Ukraine for a long time has been that at some point the West, particularly the United States, will get tired of the costs of confrontation with Russia and support for Ukraine," Brands said.
The concern, he explained, is less about the immediate revenue Moscow gains from additional diesel exports than the possibility that easing restrictions reinforces Putin's belief that Washington is growing tired of confronting Russia.
"The risk you run here has less to do with the precise dollar or ruble amount that Russia will gain by being allowed to export some additional diesel than with the strategic signal you're sending that, in fact, the U.S. is getting tired of applying economic pressure against Russia and that the U.S.-Ukraine relationship is entering another period of conflict and divergence," Brands said.
Brands sees little prospect for a negotiated settlement in the immediate future and argued that changing Putin's calculation would require convincing him that the costs of continuing the war outweigh the potential gains.
"I think the only way you get there is by continuing to support Ukraine so it can take an increasing toll on Russia on the battlefield and by finding ways of ramping up rather than ramping down the economic pressure on Russia," Brands said.
Trump's waiver does not eliminate sanctions against Russia that predated the Graham Act, and the administration can revisit the new penalties.
The dispute now centers on whether keeping those penalties in reserve strengthens Trump's hand with Putin — or diminishes their value if Moscow doubts he is willing to use them.
Throughout the history of Middle Eastern wars, one strategic mistake has been repeated time and again: great powers achieve victory on the battlefield, only to give their defeated adversaries an opportunity at the negotiating table to transform military defeat into political triumph. President Donald Trump faces precisely this danger. After eight months of war, the Islamic Republic of Iran, despite suffering devastating military and economic losses, continues to seek political survival through nuclear blackmail, threats to global energy security and the deliberate prolongation of negotiations. Washington must not allow a regime that has paid a heavy price for its reckless adventurism to regain, through a hastily negotiated agreement, the very position it occupied before the war.
The developments of Oct. 20 demonstrate that Tehran has abandoned none of its familiar tactics of confrontation, intimidation, bluffing and extortion. On the one hand, Islamic Republic officials speak of negotiations and ending the war; on the other, they impose imaginary conditions on Washington that, if accepted without credible guarantees, could dismantle much of America's leverage.
Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the Islamic Republic's Supreme National Security Council — a former terrorist affiliated with the Islamic terrorist group Mansouroun, who even sought to visit the United States in the 2000s but was opposed by the CIA — emphasized during his meeting with Pakistan's army chief that not a single gram of Iran's enriched uranium would leave the country.
Meanwhile, Abbas Araghchi — a former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps member acting as foreign minister — has made reopening the Strait of Hormuz conditional upon acceptance of Tehran's proposed plan. Far from demonstrating a genuine willingness to compromise, these positions reveal the regime's determination to preserve its instruments of coercion on the eve of a potential agreement.
The most significant issue, however, lies in the political calculations of the Islamic Republic's rulers. Tehran is deliberately dragging out negotiations to weaken Trump's political standing ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections — in other words, to exert psychological pressure on the American president.
This is no longer merely a dispute over centrifuges or economic sanctions. The Islamic Republic is attempting to weaponize the exhaustion of war, the anxieties of American voters and rising energy costs as instruments of political pressure against the president of the United States. Such calculated deception must be understood in Washington as part of Tehran's asymmetric warfare strategy, not dismissed as an ordinary diplomatic tactic.
The Strait of Hormuz stands at the center of this calculation. The terrorist organization known as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has claimed — without presenting any evidence — that Iranian naval mines prevented three oil tankers from passing through the waterway. Nevertheless, the widespread disruption of regional shipping is an undeniable reality.
The Islamic Republic understands perfectly well that it does not need to win a conventional naval battle to inflict economic pain on the United States. It need only increase the risks facing oil tankers, drive up insurance and transportation costs and keep global energy markets trapped in uncertainty. Under this strategy, commercial tankers become hostages to Tehran's security calculations, while American consumers pay the price of the Iranian regime's policies at the gas pump.
This is the very essence of the rogue Islamic Republic's asymmetric warfare: a form of conflict in which military weakness is compensated for through economic, propaganda, intelligence and proxy instruments. Tehran possesses limited capabilities in a direct confrontation with American military power, but it can exploit maritime routes, militia networks, cyberattacks and influence operations to multiply the costs of the crisis.
Reports of efforts by Iran and Russia to intensify unrest in France, together with the rearrests of two suspects in Britain on suspicion of intelligence cooperation with Iran, serve as further reminders that Western security concerns extend far beyond the Persian Gulf. Ignoring this pattern would undoubtedly be a dangerous mistake. The Islamic Republic came to power through terrorism, sustained its rule through terrorism, destruction and manufactured crises, and its eventual collapse may likewise be possible through war.
The nuclear file exposes another danger. Tehran's insistence on retaining its enriched uranium, while simultaneously demanding relief from economic and military pressure, raises a fundamental question: If the Iranian regime genuinely intends to address international concerns, why does it refuse to demonstrate flexibility over one of the most sensitive components of its nuclear program?
Uranium enrichment does not, by itself, prove a decision to manufacture nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, enriched uranium stockpiles, centrifuge capacity and the possibility of independent monitoring remain decisive factors in assessing the risk of a nuclear breakout. An agreement that postpones these questions while granting Tehran immediate and irreversible concessions could merely defer the crisis to an even more dangerous stage rather than resolve it. The principal global threat remains Islamic terrorism and Iran's transnational terrorist network.
Trump must recognize the distinction between ending military operations and eliminating a security threat. The destruction of military equipment, damage to facilities and degradation of the Revolutionary Guards' operational capabilities — however extensive — do not automatically mean the elimination of the rogue mafia regime's command structure, political will, or capacity for reconstruction.
Over the decades, the Islamic Republic has demonstrated its ability to exploit periods of reduced pressure to rebuild its military and security structures and its terrorist networks. Accordingly, America's measure of success must not be limited to the cessation of missile launches or the temporary reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Genuine success will come only when the regime's ability to repeat those same threats has been curtailed.
Another mistake must also be avoided: equating Iran with the Islamic Republic. The Iranian nation and the ruling establishment in Tehran are two fundamentally different realities. For years, the Iranian people have paid the price of domestic repression, systemic corruption, international isolation and the regime's regional adventurism. No sustainable American strategy should portray the survival of the Islamic Republic as synonymous with stability in Iran.
On the contrary, a policy that merely guarantees the regime's security in exchange for temporary concessions could deprive Iranian society of the opportunity to shape a different future. While safeguarding its own national security interests, Washington must defend the Iranian people's right to determine their country's political future, without bargaining away their destiny behind the closed doors of a security agreement. The Iranian people want regime change.
To prevent such an outcome, the Trump administration needs a clear strategic framework and a decisive course of action. Any agreement must include explicit nuclear commitments, enforceable independent monitoring, credible verification mechanisms, guarantees for maritime security and clearly defined consequences for violations. Sanctions relief and the release of financial resources must not be granted in advance without securing genuine concessions. Threats against commercial vessels must never become an instrument through which Tehran acquires political control over one of the world's most vital waterways. Diplomacy has value when it reduces threats.
As violent riots grip France, British political leader Nigel Farage warned Americans against repeating what he described as Europe's mass immigration failures, arguing that years of unchecked migration have transformed European cities and fueled unrest that could eventually spread elsewhere.
"People like me who were warning about this years ago have sadly been proven right, but the problems are gonna be here for a very, very long time," Farage told Fox News Digital in an interview. "Please, please don't make the same level of mistakes that we have," he said in his message to Americans.
Violent riots have erupted across parts of Europe in recent weeks, particularly in France, with Farage pointing to years of mass migration and failed political leadership as key factors fueling the unrest. The Reform UK leader singled out Emmanuel Macron, arguing that the French president should have mobilized the military to confront the violence, after education protests spiraled into riots, destruction and theft.
"Macron was asleep at the wheel, and it isn't just that he was at a concert," Farage said. "And whilst the French do have effective police forces, the scale of the uprising, I mean the mass looting, the mass looting and violence that took place in Paris was genuinely horrendous."
"Meloni's reaction was swifter and a better sign of leadership," Farage said, referring to the Italian leader deploying 500 military troops to Milan in response to recent riots. "But the problem is, for people like Macron, who have always said, any criticism of immigration, whether legal or illegal, makes you racist, they psychologically find it hard to face up to their own failures of policy."
Farage warned that the unrest he described in France and elsewhere in Europe could eventually erupt in Britain, pointing to demonstrations in London and questioning whether British leaders would respond more forcefully than Macron.
"You know, my real worry is they can happen in this country too," Farage said. "We've got the same hard left here. We've the same hate mobs that march, chanting in the streets of London, from the river to the sea."
"I'm concerned that these things could happen here. And I wonder whether a British prime minister has got any more courage than President Macron in France," he added.
Farage contrasted Europe's failure to control its borders with President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown in the United States.
"Look, whatever you think of President Trump's current policies, one thing he has done, and he promised he'd do. He's closed the southern border," Farage said.
Trump vowed Tuesday to treat potential rioters in the U.S. "very rough," pointing to the unrest in France, he said at a rally in Greenville, North Carolina, before being interrupted by a protestor in the crowd.
"They're crazy, these people. Look at that guy. He's a nutjob," Trump said, in reference to the protester.
He warned that he would crack down on potential threats, saying he would not allow similar unrest to take hold in the U.S.
"That's what you witness over the last three or four days. You watch nutjobs like him in France ruining their country," Trump said. "We're not going to put up with it by the way."
"If a possible threat, which could happen, I hope you won't get angry if I treat them very, very rough, because that's what's going to happen. They're not going to destroy our country," he said.
On Tuesday, British counterterrorism police rearrested two men suspected of assisting Iranian intelligence in an alleged plot targeting RAF Fairford, a U.K. base used by U.S. bombers.
"I've called again and again for this to be declared a national security emergency. I have been ignored. If the Americans removing their bombers from RAF Fairford isn't enough warning. I don't know what is," he said.
"We've just become so caught up over here in Europe and Britain with this human rights culture, which puts the interests, frankly, of the bad guys above the interests of the majority."
Sea mines have resurfaced as a threat in the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran claimed Oct.17 that two oil tankers caught fire after striking the explosives, raising fresh alarms over the safety of one of the world's most critical shipping lanes.
This came as the International Maritime Organization (IMO) warned that sea mines pose a serious threat to vessels navigating the strategic waterway and while Tehran continues to maintain its own unauthorized shipping corridor inside its territorial waters.
"The traffic separation scheme, the information that we have is that they still have mines. And of course, whilst the conflict is ongoing, it's very difficult for us to use third parties to verify that it is clear of these hazards," IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez told Fox News Digital.
"So in the meantime, we cannot guarantee that a vessel that intends to transit that route will not be hit by a mine."
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) navy said Saturday that two oil tankers caught fire after striking naval mines while crossing the Strait of Hormuz, Reuters reported, citing Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).
State media also said both tankers were carrying about 2 million barrels of crude oil, according to Reuters.
IRNA also reported that the vessels had switched off their positioning and radar systems and attempted to use a route through the strategic waterway that Iran had not authorized.
The second tanker was left immobilized after striking a mine, according to the Reuters report.
The alleged strikes came as Tehran continued to maintain its transit passageway inside Iranian territorial waters, imposing tolls and safety fees administered by the IRGC — a framework rejected by Washington and the IMO as inconsistent with international maritime law.
"Right now there's only one route that was adopted back in 1968 that is approved and recognized for IMO and that appears in all the charts for the vessels to operate," Dominguez explained.
"There's only one route that should be used for transit, but it's not clear of mines right now, so it's not safe."
"We have received confirmation from Iran about the establishment of its temporary route in the waters," he added before stating that the route was not provided with "an official confirmation or a decision of the organization."
"Any other route needs to actually be sent to the organization to go through the processes, and we have not received that."
"We have received communication from Iran to use that route because of the conflict," Dominguez clarified.
"That's the way that it's been presented. But anything for us to approve needs to go through the mechanisms at the international maritime organizations and the member states need to review it."
Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council and a former Revolutionary Guard commander, said Tehran considered Washington's latest response to negotiations "insufficient," Reuters reported, according to IRNA.
Rezaei said the U.S. had accepted some of Iran's seven conditions but that other issues remained unresolved, adding that Tehran was no longer responding to Washington and that the U.S. needed to clarify the outstanding matters.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that Tehran had submitted a proposal to Washington through Qatar, which is mediating the negotiations, outlining conditions under which the Strait of Hormuz could reopen and normal maritime traffic resume within seven days.
"Our situation is clear and based on the seven-day proposal presented to the US. They shared comments which we are reviewing, but our proposal is still on the table and if there is any honesty on the US part, which there isn't, the way to reopening the Strait of Hormuz is obvious," Araqchi said in Baghdad, Reuters reported
Senior Iranian officials also told Reuters that Tehran has shifted its strategy for attacking commercial vessels during that period.
For commercial shipping operators, Dominguez warned that the continued threat of mines and attacks means the waterway has yet to return to normal operations.
The Strait of Hormuz is "not open for business in the way that it was before the conflict started," he said.
"Our role right now is to prepare for when we have the opportunity to go back, resume the operations, follow all the procedures at IMO, but not until the root causes are addressed and those are beyond IMO."
One of Saudi Arabia’s most iconic skyscrapers ordered office workers to stay home Sunday as escalating attacks by Iran-backed Houthi rebels rattled the capital of Riyadh amid fears of a widening Middle East conflict.
The move came after the Saudi-led coalition said it intercepted two drones in the Riyadh area, a third over the Eastern Province and two ballistic missiles in southern Saudi Arabia overnight, after authorities had earlier issued a threat alert in the capital, also shared on X.
Management at the 99-story Kingdom Centre, a landmark on Riyadh's skyline, ordered office employees to work remotely until further notice, according to reporting by Agence France-Presse (AFP).
The directive affects a building whose tenants include major international financial institutions such as Merrill Lynch, consulting giant McKinsey & Company and the International Monetary Fund.
"Please be advised that remote working arrangements are mandatory for all office employees at Kingdom Centre, effective immediately and until further notice," building management said in an email obtained by AFP.
Employees were instructed not to report back to their offices. The shopping mall at the base of the tower, however, remained open to the public.
Management did not specify a reason for the directive, but it came as repeated missile and drone attacks by Yemen's Houthis disrupted the Saudi capital.
The security concerns also follow a deadly Oct. 10 attack on King Khalid International Airport that killed 13 people and wounded more than 300 others.
As previously reported by Fox News Digital, another strike the following day killed one person and injured 11.
Airport operations have been severely disrupted, while schools in Riyadh have extended remote learning measures amid continued security threats.
The mounting crisis comes as Saudi Arabia's military reported two deaths in a helicopter crash near its southern border with Yemen.
Maj. Gen. Turki al-Maliki, spokesperson for the Saudi-led coalition, said Sunday that an AH-6i reconnaissance helicopter crashed in the Najran region because of a technical malfunction, killing both crew members.
Saudi civil defense authorities also reported Sunday that six people were injured when a hostile projectile struck a residential neighborhood in Najran, damaging three homes and three vehicles.
Meanwhile, Egypt moved toward potentially providing military assistance to Saudi Arabia as the kingdom confronts the growing Houthi threat.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi requested an emergency parliamentary session to authorize defensive military support for Saudi Arabia if requested by Riyadh, Reuters reported.
Lawmakers were expected to continue discussions Monday.
The Egyptian presidency said Cairo was prepared to provide Saudi Arabia with necessary support to defend its security, stability, territorial integrity and Islamic holy sites.
The statement followed a meeting of Egypt's National Defense Council chaired by el-Sissi and attended by senior government and military officials.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty also spoke with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan about regional developments and the importance of de-escalation, according to a post on X.
The potential involvement of Egypt, which has one of the Arab world's largest militaries, could significantly expand the regional response to the Houthis.
The Iran-backed group now controls Yemen's capital, Sanaa, and much of the country's north.
Fighting with the Saudi-led coalition, which supports Yemen's internationally recognized government, has intensified amid the broader U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran.
Login
