US issues terror advisory over Israel-Iran war, warns of cyberattacks and extremism
The US Department of Homeland Security on Sunday issued a warning of 'heightened threat environment,' across the country linked to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. The bulletin, effective through September 22, mentions increased risks of cyberattacks, violent extremism, and hate crimes.
In its bulletin, the ministry stated:
'The ongoing Iran conflict is causing a heightened threat environment in the United States. Low-level cyber attacks against US networks by pro-Iranian hacktivists are likely, and cyber actors affiliated with the Iranian government may conduct attacks against US networks.'
The ministry said that Iran has a long-standing commitment to target US government officials it views as responsible for the death of an Iranian military commander killed in January 2020.
According to the bulletin, pro-Iranian hackers and cyber actors aligned with the Iranian government are likely to conduct low-level cyberattacks against US systems and internet-connected devices.
The advisory flags concerns about homegrown 'violent extremists' who may be inspired to act in response to global events, particularly if Iran's leadership issues religious calls for retaliatory violence.
Recent US-based attacks fueled by anti-Semitic or anti-Israel sentiment could be precursors to more incidents, DHS warned.
It further went on to note that militant groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine have also issued statements calling for 'violence against US assets', potentially encouraging attacks on Jewish, pro-Israel, or US government targets.
In the bulletin, the DHS listed resources 'to stay safe.' It also urged public to:
(With inputs from the official DHS bulletin)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
34 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Salary warning to those who skipped Yoga Day event creates stir at Wildlife Institute, later withdrawn
An internal email from the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) has run into controversy after it warned that the salaries of employees who were absent for the International Yoga Day event on Saturday at its offices could be withheld until a valid written explanation is submitted and verified. The email was sent on Monday morning by the Registrar of the Dehradun-based central government institute. After it created a stir, another email was sent in the afternoon saying that the previous one had been withdrawn. According to Monday morning's email, the overall attendance for the Yoga Day event was poor despite repeated notices issued by the WII and communications from the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. 'Please note that while WII ensures the timely disbursement of monthly salaries/emoluments to over 600 employees (including researchers), about 75 individuals participated in this important national event,' it said. The mail further said that all those who were absent on June 21 — Yoga Day — without prior intimation are required to submit a written explanation for their absence. WII employees, permanent and contractual, were asked to submit an explanation to their sectional head or the Deputy Registrar. The email also asked the finance officer to withhold the release of salaries for the month of June until the attendance record, tour details, or a valid written explanation is received and verified, the email said. Then at 1.54 pm on Monday, another email said the previous one stands withdrawn. The institution's Registrar, J A Johnson, said the morning email was sent to ensure 'professional conduct' among employees, and was not a ministry directive. 'As the administration, we expect punctuality and discipline, which is why the email was sent. We had not planned any action. Yoga Day was an institutional event, and I wanted employees to take part,' he said. Before Saturday's event, on the same email thread, the Registrar had asked the employees to wear white clothes and carry individual yoga mats to celebrate the day. Staff at the institute said that participation on Yoga Day has always been voluntary at the institute. The Registrar also said it has not been made compulsory. Aiswarya Raj is a correspondent with The Indian Express who covers South Haryana. An alumna of Asian College of Journalism and the University of Kerala, she started her career at The Indian Express as a sub-editor in the Delhi city team. In her current position, she reports from Gurgaon and covers the neighbouring districts. She likes to tell stories of people and hopes to find moorings in narrative journalism. ... Read More
India.com
39 minutes ago
- India.com
Like US, will China join Iran-Israel war to support Tehran? Is its army capable of...? Will it be a shocker for...
Like US, will China join Iran-Israel war to support Tehran? Is its arm capable of…? Will it be a shocker for… The United States has recently joined the Iran-Israel war and carried out precision attacks on Iran's nuclear sites — Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The sudden attacks by America have escalated tensions in the Middle East. The question arising is: Will China, which is the largest trading partner and oil buyer of Iran, support Tehran during this tough time? Does the People's Liberation Army (PLA) have the capability to fight a war 5,000 km away? Let us know how much military power China has: China-Iran Relations China and Iran share a good bilateral relations with each other. Both the countries have a 25-year strategic cooperation agreement (2021), covering energy, trade, infrastructure and military cooperation. Oil trade: Iran supplies about 2 million barrels of oil to China per day. This accounts 15 percent of the Beijing's oil imports. 90 percent of Iran's oil exports go to China via 'dark fleet' tankers to evade Western sanctions. Strategic Partnership: Iran is China's important partner to counter US influence in the Middle East. Military Cooperation: China has supplied missile technology, drone parts, and rocket fuel to Iran. Will China Enters Iran War? China's Military Power- The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA), a massive force of 2 million active personnel and 1 million reservists equipped with advanced weaponry, presents a significant military power. However, its ability to effectively project power into the Middle East, a region 5,000 kilometers distant, warrants examination of both its capabilities and constraints. Soldiers: 9.7 lakh active soldiers. Weapons: 7,000 tanks, 35,000 armoured vehicles and 12,000 artillery pieces. Navy (PLAN) Warships: 425 ships, including 3 aircraft carriers (Liaoning, Shandong, Fujian), 72 submarines and 150 warships. Missiles: DF-21D and DF-26 'Carrier Killer' ballistic missiles, which has rage of 1800–4000 km, and can destroy naval targets. Capability: The PLAN has an increasing presence in the Indian Ocean. It has only one overseas military base (Djibouti), which is small and surrounded by Western bases. Air Force (PLAAF) Aircraft: 3,200 aircraft, including 600 stealth J-20 fighter jets, 400 J-16s and 250 bombers (H-6K). Missiles: PL-15 air-to-air missile (200 km range) and CJ-20 cruise missile. Rocket Force (PLARF) Missiles: 2000 ballistic and cruise missiles, including the DF-41 ICBM (12000 km range) and the hypersonic DF-17. Cyber and Space Forces China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) possesses sophisticated cyber warfare capabilities, including the ability to disrupt radar and communication systems. Their space-based assets, comprising approximately 400 satellites, offer surveillance and targeting support. While the PLA can provide indirect support, such as intelligence gathering, its direct combat effectiveness remains limited. Limitation: China has restricted itself from supplying advanced weapons like PL-15 missile to Iran as it increases the risk of global sanctions. Logistical Challenge: The People's Liberation Army (PLA) faces significant logistical hurdles in projecting power over long distances. Its current capabilities for maritime and air transport are insufficient to support military operations 5,000 kilometers from its bases. Online commentary suggests the PLA's effectiveness is limited to coastal regions, making it vulnerable in more distant conflicts. Economic Interests: Oil supplies from Iran is a major source of China's energy security. If Israel and US attack Iran's oil refineries, China's economy could be affected. If China joins the Iran war, a military operation 5,000 km away requires massive naval and air support, which Beijing does not have. Its military is inexperienced in foreign warfare and don't have overseas bases. China's foreign policy prioritizes non-intervention, favouring diplomatic engagement and economic assistance over military involvement in international conflicts. While possessing a formidable military, the People's Liberation Army's capabilities are primarily geared towards regional defence, limiting its potential for distant interventions like those in the Middle East. This, combined with China's non-interventionist stance and concerns about US confrontation, further restricts its propensity for direct military action abroad.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
When can US go to war? Here's what its Constitution says
In 1973, a war-weary US Congress passed the War Powers Act to rein in presidents who overstepped in Vietnam. Five decades later, President Donald Trump's unilateral strike on Iran has reignited a debate the Founders thought they had settled in 1787. On June 22, when Trump announced a series of coordinated airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities — hitting targets in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — he did so without notifying Congress, let alone securing its approval. The sites were hit with precision-guided missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-busters. While Tehran stopped short of a formal declaration of war, officials warned that retaliation was inevitable. At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, Iran's ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, accused the United States of having 'destroyed diplomacy,' warning that the Iranian military would determine the 'timing, nature, and scale' of its retaliation, the Associated Press reported. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi immediately flew to Moscow for consultations with Russia, a sign of how fast this confrontation could escalate beyond bilateral hostilities. Back in Washington, President Trump's aides termed the strike as a limited action. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on Fox News to clarify the administration's position: 'This is not a war against Iran,' he said. 'It's a targeted operation to prevent nuclear escalation.' Yet just hours later, President Trump posted a message online: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' The message prompted widespread speculation. Was the administration pursuing regime change in Iran? And if so, was the United States already engaged in war? Global markets reacted nervously. Oil prices surged, and analysts warned of long-term consequences for nuclear non-proliferation and regional stability. More profoundly, Trump's decision reignited a centuries-old question: who gets to declare war? The US Constitution is unequivocal: under Article I, Section 8, only Congress — not the President — holds the authority to declare war. This separation was no accident. It was a deliberate check on executive power, forged in reaction to the British monarchy, where kings could drag nations into conflict at will. The Founders sought to ensure that decisions as grave as war would require the consent of the people's representatives. The Constitution also designates the president as Commander in Chief under Article II, granting authority to direct military operations once war is authorised. The executive also retains the capacity to respond swiftly to sudden attacks. The most notable test came in 1861, when President Abraham Lincoln ordered a blockade of Southern ports at the outset of the Civil War, months before Congress officially declared war on the Confederacy. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld Lincoln's actions, ruling that the President has the authority to 'repel sudden attacks.' For much of US history, this balance endured. From the War of 1812 through World War II, major military engagements were accompanied by formal declarations of war from Congress. Formal declarations of war have remained rare. The United States has declared war only 11 times. (Source: But in the post-1945 world, that constitutional clarity began to blur. The first major rupture came in 1950, when President Harry Truman committed US troops to Korea without seeking congressional approval, framing the war as a 'police action' under the United Nations banner. Subsequent presidents followed suit. John F Kennedy escalated America's presence in Vietnam by sending military advisors and weapons, sidestepping a formal declaration. By 1969, President Richard Nixon was conducting a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, entirely without the knowledge or consent of Congress. This executive overreach eventually sparked legislative backlash. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, designed to reassert its authority, overriding Nixon's veto in the process. The act required presidents to consult with Congress before engaging in hostilities and to withdraw forces within 60 days unless Congress explicitly authorised further action. In theory, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was crafted to restrain precisely the kind of unilateral action President Trump has now taken. Passed in the aftermath of Vietnam, the law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US forces into hostilities and to withdraw them within 60 days unless Congress grants explicit authorisation. In practice, it has proven all but toothless. Every president since its passage has sidestepped or outright ignored its provisions. Trump did not inform Congress before ordering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, nor, critics argue, has he offered a convincing legal justification under the US or international law. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department, told the New York Times. The law, like many of its post-Watergate era peers, was built on trust and precedent. It had no true enforcement mechanism. And so, it has repeatedly failed to restrain the very power it was meant to check. Trump's decision fits a well-established pattern of executive overreach in foreign military engagements. President Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada and airstrikes on Libya without congressional approval. President George HW Bush invaded Panama in 1989, triggering legal debate over constitutional boundaries. President Bill Clinton bombed Serbia in 1999 as part of the Kosovo conflict, again without seeking congressional consent. President Barack Obama launched a prolonged air campaign in Libya in 2011 and later against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, citing outdated authorisations rather than requesting new ones. Even President Joe Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, authorised airstrikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen in 2024 without congressional sanction. Each administration justified its actions as necessary and time-sensitive. But cumulatively, these precedents have normalised unilateral war-making, eroding Congress's role and the public's voice in questions of war and peace. Technological change has accelerated this shift. Drones, cyber tools, and remote strike capabilities have made it easier to conduct military operations with minimal personnel and lower political risk. A key enabler of this executive drift has been the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The resolution granted the president authority to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the attacks and those who harboured them. Originally intended to target al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the 2001 AUMF has since been used to justify military actions in at least seven countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan. It has also been invoked against newer groups like ISIS, despite no explicit congressional authorisation for those operations. Multiple presidents have promised to revise or repeal the AUMF. None have succeeded. Its broad language remains a legal foundation for perpetual military engagement. Trump's 2025 strikes have brought these longstanding tensions to a head. Legal scholars, military experts, and members of Congress are warning that US war-making has entered a constitutional grey zone. By allowing the executive to define and initiate acts of war without oversight, Congress risks ceding one of its most fundamental constitutional powers. Trump ran for office promising to end America's entanglements abroad. Instead, with his June strike, he has intensified one of the longest-running debates in US history. At its core, the question remains unchanged since 1787: who gets to take the United States to war? Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics. She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks. She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year. She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home. Write to her at or You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More
