Andy Burnham has been accused of ignoring the growing danger Russia could pose to Britain, with critics claiming he is “burying his head in the sand”.

Lord Richard Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, said the Government was failing to move quickly enough and needed to do far more to strengthen the UK’s defences.

His warning came as concerns over Britain’s readiness for a potential conflict intensified on Thursday, when households were advised to keep enough food and water to last for three days.

Defence Secretary Wes Streeting said the advice was intended to help the public prepare for a range of emergencies, including wildfires, flooding and cyberattacks.

However, the preparedness campaign follows warnings from senior Nato military figures that Russia may be planning sabotage operations which could unintentionally escalate into a wider conflict.

Despite the mounting alarm, the Prime Minister has yet to confirm whether defence spending will rise to 3 per cent of GDP by 2030, matching commitments made by several other Nato members.

“The bottom line is that we are very exposed, but His Majesty’s Government has its collective head firmly in the sand,” Lord Dannatt told the Daily Mail, urging Downing Street to take immediate action.

As the debate over national security grows, experts have set out a range of ways Vladimir Putin’s regime could seek to exploit Britain’s “brittle” defences. The scenarios include nuclear weapons, submarines capable of causing radioactive waves and drone swarms able to monitor sensitive military locations.

Senior Western officials have also warned that the Russian leader is believed to be considering sabotage operations across Europe in an effort to undermine support for Ukraine.

The Kremlin is suspected of involvement in covert incidents at several locations in European Nato countries, including a London warehouse, an Estonian weapons plant and a railway in Poland.

Defence sources have suggested that Moscow could attempt to use its extensive “shadow fleet” of sanctioned oil tankers as offshore launch sites for drone attacks aimed at the UK.

Officials said unmanned air and sea craft could be positioned near Britain’s coastline and directed at power stations, North Sea oil platforms or military facilities. Such carefully limited strikes could be designed to remain below the threshold that would provoke an all-out war.

One aircraft reportedly considered for these missions is the Gerbera drone.

The CIA reportedly claimed last month that Russia was considering launching similar drones from commercial vessels in the Mediterranean, potentially targeting Italy, Spain or France.

The drones have a wingspan of around 2.5 metres, allowing them to be concealed inside cargo containers and launched using a catapult. Once airborne, they can reportedly travel approximately 370 miles.

Although their warheads are relatively small, the aircraft could allegedly be used to ignite fires, damage vulnerable infrastructure such as electricity transformers or disrupt major airports including Gatwick and Heathrow.

Security experts have also raised concerns that Russia’s jet-powered Geran-3, Geran-4 and Geran-5 drones could be launched from larger shadow-fleet tankers operating in the North Sea, the Channel or the Atlantic.

Versions of these weapons have already been used in attacks on cities across Ukraine.

Other equipment reportedly being assessed for similar operations includes autonomous underwater vehicles and basic quadcopters, which could be deployed to collect intelligence on British military bases.

Mr Putin has already been accused of launching drones from his fleet of sanctioned oil tankers to spy on nuclear weapons in Britain, intelligence experts claimed earlier this year.

The aircraft ‘exploited numerous gaps’ in air defences during a ‘sustained’ 15-month campaign by Moscow, according to a report published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).

Among the military establishments targeted was RAF Lakenheath, a US base in Suffolk that is preparing to host nuclear bombs. Its airspace was breached in November 2024 alongside three other US sites in England, sparking alarm.

The sightings at the time were dismissed by Western officials. However, analysis by IISS has since blamed a sanctioned Russian tanker docked in Hull for launching the drones.

Bases across Europe were also spied on, which included a secret submarine HQ at Île Longue in Brittany, northern France, which houses the bulk of the country’s nuclear missiles and air bases containing nuclear bombs in Belgium and the Netherlands.

‘We are vulnerable and we’re currently under Russian attack and it’s only going to get worse,’ Colonel Philip Ingram, a former officer in British military intelligence, warned.

‘Putin sees us as weak militarily and that we cannot threaten them in any shape or form, so he is increasing the attacks in the grey zone.’

Moscow has also been testing its new nuclear-powered ‘doomsday’ submarine which could soon be ready for action.   

The Kremlin sent the Khabarovsk attack boat off for sea trials in the White Sea with no fanfare over the summer.

The Daily Mail understands Nato is aware of the boat and has been tracking its recent set of tests.

The 10,000-ton submarine has been designed to carry up to six Poseidon nuclear torpedoes on top of its ordinary anti-ship and land-attack missiles.

In theory, analysts say, an underwater blast created by Poseidon could drive a massive radioactive surge inland, sending huge tsunami waves that could devastate cities.

However, the boat has faced years of development hell and experts say the nuclear attack submarine is nowhere near being ready for operations.  And experts have dismissed it as Kremlin propaganda designed to distract the West. 

Senior Western officials have also dismissed claims Russia is willing to use nuclear weapons against Europe despite sabre-rattling from the Kremlin in recent months. 

But they have warned that Mr Putin’s thirst to launch a sabotage campaign in Europe risks a ‘miscalculation’ that could accidentally trigger a confrontation with Nato.

‘The appetite of Russia to conduct… sub-threshold or hybrid operations against Nato countries, whether this is sabotage or cyber, is very clear. President Putin absolutely wants to avoid a direct confrontation with Nato. However, in all of this, there is the risk of miscalculation,’ one official said.  

Mr Putin is also believed to be using his fleet of submarines and spy ships to map Britain’s network of critical undersea data cables.

The lines, which crisscross the ocean floor, carry about 95 per cent of global telecommunications data and the UK is almost entirely reliant on them to provide internet connection to the outside world.

However, Britain only has one dedicated ship able to repair the deep-sea telecoms cables.

A Russian attack on the network would likely cripple the UK, disrupting banks, hospitals and transport networks and throwing the economy into chaos.

Nato has insisted it remains focused on tracking the movement of Mr Putin’s subs, warships and his decrepit fleet of more than 700 ageing tankers responsible for carrying 75 per cent of Russia’s sanctioned oil.

The focus of the alliance’s response to the Russian fleet comes from its Allied Maritime Command (Marcom) based at Northwood headquarters outside of London. 

‘The UK should take comfort in the fact we are watching this 24 hours a day, 365 days a year,’ a Nato official told the Mail. 

Recently members of the alliance, including the UK, have sought to put a stranglehold on the shadow fleet. Royal Marines stormed one vessel, the Smytros, in June, seizing it. Similar actions have been carried out by the US, France and Sweden. 

The crackdown has forced Mr Putin to order his naval fleet, diminished through losses to Ukraine, to bodyguard his clandestine shadow fleet through the Channel and Baltics. 

The actions have meant Russia has been able to send a single warship to the Mediterranean for months for the first time in a decade. 

Commander Tim Pietrack, a Nato spokesman, insisted such operations were helping to cripple Russia’s ability to operate at sea.

‘These escorting activities take up valuable days at sea for the Russian navy, and it places strain on their ability to generate naval forces for other missions,’ he said. 

He added: ‘There’s no area around the Euro-Atlantic region where the Russian navy operates that Allies are not closely monitoring their activities.’

Elsewhere, analysts fear the Kremlin could expand its espionage operation further, potentially recruiting British gangsters to carry out sabotage attacks against UK defence firms. 

Russia has already been accused of recruiting criminals to carry out attacks in Britain.

YOU MAY ALSO READ: Why Meghan Markle Said “I’m a Daddy’s Girl” Four Years After Letter to Her Father

Earlier this year, a gang who firebombed Sir Keir Starmer’s home in a suspected Russian plot were jailed for a total of nine years today.

Two Ukrainian men were hired as ‘pawns’ by a mystery Russian figure to target the former prime minister setting fire to his family home, his former car and another property he was linked to in a plot which has since been linked to a Russian diplomat.

Lured by the promise of making £3,000 in ‘easy money’, Roman Lavrynovych, 21 and Stanislav Carpiuc, 26, set fire to Sir Keir’s constituency home where his sister-in-law was staying and a flat in Islington which he had previously been linked to in the early hours of May 12 and May 11.

While last year, six Britons acting for Russia’s Wagner group were jailed for setting fire to a warehouse storing humanitarian aid for Ukraine in Leyton, east London. 

The actions are feared to be part of a concerted ‘grey zone’ campaign by the Kremlin to undermine British security and test its responses.

Lord Dannatt insisted the National Cyber Security Centre, which is part of GCHQ, needed ‘further resources to combat hackers’ to defend the UK.

He also called for further support to be given to police and MI5 to ‘thwart or investigate potential sabotage and direct-action attacks’ on British defence firms.

And he demanded more sub-surface and aerial surveillance technology for the Navy and RAF to ‘deter Russian interference’ with the nation’s critical undersea communications cable and energy pipelines.

‘We are increasingly familiar with the range of grey zone threats, some of which can be shrugged off as criminal activity but increasingly we should now realise these are malign state actors moving against us, particularly Russia,’ Lord Dannatt told the Mail.

‘But much more worrying is a near-lack of ballistic missile defence capability.’

Britain’s only defence to a ballistic missile attack is its fleet of six Type 45 destroyers. However, not every one of the £1billion warships would be available in the event of an attack, with the majority undergoing either long-term refit or maintenance programmes.

Russia has one of the largest submarine fleets in the world. Armed with ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, they are capable of striking Britain from the Barents Sea, Arctic and North Atlantic. 

The Conservatives have pledged to invest £10billion in a system to defend the UK against such long-range attacks, should they win the next general election.

Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said the party’s ‘Britannia Shield’ would offer an integrated network of interceptor missiles, radar arrays and command and control systems.

Meanwhile, Labour has pledged to invest £790million over the next four years on improving the country’s integrated air and missile defences.

Concerns over Russia deepened on Wednesday after it emerged Moscow was employing fishing boats to hunt for subsea cables.

Civilian vessels attempting to carry out espionage for Mr Putin in waters around the UK are already being tracked by Nato, according to The Telegraph.

The outlet analysed more than 500 cases of Russian trawlers loitering above vital communication lines linking the UK with Europe and the US.

Others have been seen following cable routes at slow speeds for miles through the ocean, raising suspicions vessels were pinpointing the exact locations of the lines.

A Nato source told the paper: ‘We’re absolutely aware of what Russian civilian fishing ships are up to and where… Some of these ships have never seen a single fish on their deck.’

Ministers have confirmed that Russia is using ‘commercial proxies’ to threaten vital undersea infrastructure. 

It comes amid increasing threats from Russia in the Arctic and North Atlantic. Earlier this year, it was revealed a covert Russian operation to sabotage cables on the Arctic seabed had been disrupted by British, American and Norwegian forces.

The latest revelation suggests Moscow has already been carrying out subterfuge on an unprecedented scale at sea, raising fresh questions about the Royal Navy’s ability to react.

The Navy has shrunk to its smallest size in living memory. It has five active frigates, six destroyers and two aircraft carriers, alongside a submarine fleet of six Astute-class attack boats and four Vanguard-class subs, which carry Britain’s nuclear weapons.

Both the aircraft carriers, HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth, have been plagued by technical gremlins and reported mechanical problems since their maiden voyages.

In March, General Sir Gwyn Jenkins, the First Sea Lord, admitted the Senior Service was not ready for war. The naval chief is pinning his hopes on creating a new ‘hybrid navy’ of drone vessels and traditional warships which could bolster the fleet’s ability.

At the same time, the British Army has shrunk to its smallest number in more than 200 years, with about 71,000 full-time, fully-trained troops ready to deploy to the front line.

Matthew Savill, the director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute think-tank, said: ‘Our biggest problem is we’re in the wrong place in terms of our ability to sustain operations. We’re brittle.

‘We have things that are good but frankly we don’t have enough of them… [the] Astute submarines are a good piece of equipment but we only have a small number and only one operation. That’s a problem.

‘The RAF has the F-35 [stealth jets] and they’re very good but we simply don’t have enough of them

‘If the Royal Navy was to deploy a carrier strike group now by itself that would be the totality of the Navy. And the Army can’t deploy at the full strength that it has to.’

He continued: ‘The biggest challenge from the armed forces’ perspective is we’re upgrading capability but in a number of areas we are years behind where we want to be.’ 

Colonel Ingram feared the current state of Britain’s military meant it posed little threat to Russia. 

‘The UK is woefully short in its defensive capability. We have nothing between be able to deal with a small skirmish – which is all our armed forces can do right now – to then having to go to full intercontinental nuclear missiles, starting World War 3,’ he added.

The concerns came after a damning report this week warned Britain and her allies are leaving the Arctic for the taking by Mr Putin.

MPs found critical shortages of Royal Navy warships could allow Russia to plunder the High North for its energy resources and to control shipping routes. 

The study by the Defence Select Committee comes after the UK’s only ice patrol ship HMS Protector broke down.

While earlier this week the Mail revealed how a further eight crewed warships, including minehunters and offshore patrol vessels, are expected to be withdrawn over the next five years.

Meanwhile, the Kremlin is building up its naval assets in the region where melting ice caps are hotting up the competition for oil, gas and rare mineral resources that were previously beyond reach.

By 2040, the Arctic is expected to be ‘ice free’ during the summer months – a development expected to increase China’s military involvement.

Committee chairman Tan Dhesi said: ‘The High North poses a major strategic challenge for UK security.

‘Our greatest adversary, Russia, is seeking to dominate this demanding, hostile environment for its military advantage. The UK needs to address a hard truth: it does not have all the capabilities to operate successfully in the High North.

‘Russian submarine and sabotage forces pose direct risks to the North Atlantic and the UK, including the nuclear deterrent. Despite this the Ministry of Defence has accepted a serious anti-submarine warfare gap.

‘Publicly available evidence of low availability among destroyers, frigates and attack submarines calls into question whether the UK can meet its commitments to the High North.’

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it is investing £330million over four years to strengthen protection of critical underwater infrastructure.

An MoD spokesman added: ‘The suggestion that Britain is not taking the Russian threat seriously is simply wrong. We are clear-eyed about the threat Russia poses in and around the UK and are unflinching in defending our people and our allies.

‘That’s why we are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War, committing nearly £300bn over the next four years, ensuring our Armed Forces can tackle future threats wherever they emerge.

‘This includes £790m to strengthen protection from air, drone and missile threats, £2bn into wider air defence and counter-drone capabilities and £2.5bn for cyber and the electromagnetic domain.’

Before their relationship deteriorated beyond repair, the Duchess of Sussex often spoke warmly about her father. Meghan repeatedly described herself as the apple of Thomas Markle’s eye.

In her Netflix documentary with Prince Harry, she sought to emphasise the strength of their relationship, saying: “I’ve been a Daddy’s Girl my whole life.”

That is unlikely to be a phrase Meghan will use again soon. Her 82-year-old father, Thomas Markle, has been accused of keeping a large collection of “sickening” child sexual images at his home in the Philippines. The allegation was reportedly brought to police by his 60-year-old son, Thomas Markle Jr. Thomas Sr has denied the claims, calling them “a bunch of lies”.

What makes Meghan’s Netflix comments especially striking is that they were recorded in 2022, four years after she says the Metropolitan Police received a letter containing “troubling and disturbing allegations” about her father. Meghan has said those concerns led her to stop Thomas from meeting her children, explaining that she did so “to protect them”.

Against that backdrop, her description of herself as “a Daddy’s Girl” sounds incongruous. If she believed he posed a danger, why refer to him at all — and why choose such an affectionate expression, even when speaking about the past? Much about this complicated story remains unclear.

The dispute has become an unpleasant tangle of family feuds, allegations, denials and private grievances involving the Markle family. Some members have made deeply personal accusations in public. Thomas Jr’s claims about his father have already been rejected by his half-sister Samantha, who accused him of fabricating them for financial gain.

“There is no merit in these disgusting allegations whatsoever and my brother is disgusting for making them up,” she told the Daily Mail. “He wants to destroy our dad. Shame on him.”

Some may also have forgotten that, in the year before Meghan’s wedding, Thomas Jr — then living in a small Oregon town — pulled a gun on his fiancée, Darlene, during one of their drunken arguments. One of his sons, Tyler, a marijuana farmer, also planned to profit from his connection to Meghan by launching a potent cannabis strain called Markle’s Sparkle. Growing marijuana is legal in Oregon.

Whatever the truth behind the allegations about the images, one point is beyond dispute: Meghan and her father were once extremely close, as both have acknowledged. As a child, she would kiss the television screen whenever his name appeared in the credits of the programme on which he worked as a lighting director.

She also visited him on set whenever she could. They sometimes went fishing, while weekends were devoted to tap-dancing and ballet classes. Afterwards, they followed their familiar ritual of sharing a club sandwich and fruit smoothie. They were, by all accounts, idyllic days.

Mr Markle encouraged his daughter to pursue her ambitions so that, in his words, “I could grow up and have so much”. It is easy to understand why she once regarded him as a devoted father. He affectionately called her “Bean”, while another nickname was “Buckaroo”, a Californian-Spanish term for cowboy.

Their closeness faded as Meghan grew older, but she continued to love him until her 2018 wedding. Then, as is widely known, Thomas Markle’s decision to secretly work with a paparazzi photographer to stage a series of photographs caused a lasting rupture. The episode came as Prince Harry was appealing to the media to leave his future father-in-law alone.

Meghan cut off contact, and the two never spoke again. Thomas publicly complained about the estrangement, while many people believed Meghan had treated him too harshly and urged her to reconcile with him before it was too late. Even her most severe critics, however, may have felt some sympathy this week as the disturbing allegations emerged in the Philippines.

For Meghan, the claims must raise painful questions about the childhood she once remembered so fondly. Long-held assumptions have suddenly been thrown into doubt.

The significance of the allegations was quickly underlined by a source described as being close to the Sussexes. The intervention appeared designed to reinforce the connection between the claims and Meghan’s decision to remain estranged from her father. But was this really the moment to use a family crisis in that way?

“Now maybe people will finally understand why she has had nothing to do with her father since 2018,” the insider said.

Within hours, however, the possibility was raised that Thomas Markle might have been framed, making the earlier intervention seem premature. Before that suggestion could be properly considered, reports indicated that the alleged interest in child sexual abuse material may not have been entirely unknown to Meghan.

Significantly, Meghan’s statement did not specify when the letter concerning her father was shared with her or when she read it. Its wording nevertheless appeared to suggest that she learned of it in 2018, the year she married Prince Harry.

If Meghan was aware at the time that her father faced serious allegations, she gave little public indication of it. Just two years earlier, she had published an affectionate tribute to Thomas for Father’s Day.

In it, she recalled ‘so many moments with my dad… his commitment he made to lighting my high school musicals so that they felt as grand as a Broadway Show.

‘The blood, sweat and tears this man (who came from so little in a small town in Pennsylvania, where Christmas stockings were filled with oranges, and dinners were potatoes and Spam) invested in my future so that I could grow up and have so much.

‘He helped me turn my bathroom into a darkroom when I was 12 because I wanted to be a photographer. He put gas in my car when I went from audition to audition trying to make it as an actress. He is the person who believed in this grand dream of mine well before I could even see it as a possibility.

‘He taught me to write thank you notes, to always arrive early, to drink Arnold Palmers [a non- alcoholic cocktail of lemonade and iced tea, popular in the US], to find my light when I’m on camera… and beyond. And that, right there, is my point: my dad taught me to find my light.’ And it was always her intention that he would be the one to walk her down the aisle.

MORE STORY: Zelenskyy Tells ABC News Starlink Network Still Isn’t Fully Working

In the months before the wedding, all had seemed well between them – even if Meghan wasn’t keen on him making a speech. When Mr Markle told Harry on the phone that he would ‘like to make a little speech’ at the wedding, the prince responded: ‘You will have to talk to Meghan.’

According to Mr Markle, when he spoke to his daughter, she replied there was ‘no room’ in the ceremony for a speech by her father. Mr Markle said: ‘I was going to recount the funny story about how she broke the news to me about dating Harry. ‘Daddy, I’ve met a man… Daddy, he’s English… Daddy, he’s a prince’.’

After the staged photos scandal, Mr Markle felt too embarrassed to show his face in Windsor. And the matter was put beyond doubt when he suffered two heart attacks with just days to go.

Text messages from Meghan made plain her concern, even if she was irritated he was blabbing to the media. One read: ‘I’ve been reaching out to you all weekend but you’re not taking any of our calls or replying to any texts. Do you need help? What hospital are you at?’

In another, sent on May 17, 2018 – two days before the wedding – she said: ‘Please can I ask that you stop talking to any press. You haven’t returned any of our 20+ calls since we all spoke on Saturday morning; which only adds to the hurt you’ve been causing. We aren’t angry but we do really need to speak to u. Love M and H.’

Then, a group of five women – the duchess’s inner circle –resolved to ‘speak the truth’ about their friend to an American celebrity magazine.

It has been widely reported that the resulting article which appeared in People in February 2019 was sanctioned by the duchess herself, something that was never denied.

Certainly, it seemed inconceivable that this well-meaning quintet would run to a magazine favoured by Meghan to ‘set the record straight’ and criticise her father without her blessing.

What is noteworthy about the article now is that it conveyed Meghan’s desire to repair their relationship.

Why, you might ask, would she wish to do so if she was worried about the apparent threat he posed to her son, who was born just a few months later in May 2019?

One friend is quoted by People as saying: ‘He writes her a really long letter… and he closes it by requesting a photo op with her. And she feels like, ‘That’s the opposite of what I’m saying. I’m telling you I don’t want to communicate through the media, and you’re asking me to communicate through the media. Did you hear anything I said?’ It’s almost like they’re ships passing.

‘He knows how to get in touch with her. Her telephone number hasn’t changed. He’s never called; he’s never texted.’

So by 2019 then, Meghan, it seems, was more than alive to the possibility of reconciliation.

Where then does this leave yesterday’s statement in which she described the child sex allegations as ‘more sickening’ than was possible to imagine?

In it, Meghan added: ‘I am deeply distressed at the news that has come to light in the last 24 hours, and my thoughts are with any children who may have been harmed. In 2018, a letter was sent to the Metropolitan Police and Royalty and Specialist Protection. That letter was subsequently shared with me.’

She said that when she received the letter outlining allegations against her father, she was ‘given assurance that these were being investigated’.

Here’s where the saga takes another curious twist.

Her statement appeared to catch the Met unawares. The force could not readily confirm Meghan’s account of the letter being passed to her, although one should note that she did not specify that the police did so. Perhaps it was the original letter-writer, or someone else.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: ‘We are aware of media reports that officers from the Met’s Royalty and Specialist Protection Command were involved in the passing on of a letter in 2018. We are undertaking enquiries internally in an effort to confirm this.’

Meanwhile in Manila, the Undersecretary for the Philippines Department of Justice, Nicholas Ty, told the BBC that ‘the matter is currently being investigated’ by an anti-human trafficking and child sexual-exploitation task force.

Police have already seized Mr Markle’s computer to conduct a comprehensive digital forensic examination. Investigators are analysing the data to determine the full scope and extent of his alleged criminal activities, with a minister saying it would take one week to get the forensic results.

Before then, we can doubtless expect more twists and turns in between.

U.S. intelligence officials have warned that Iranian efforts to assassinate Americans overseas have entered “advanced stages,” prompting Washington to reduce diplomatic staffing across the Middle East as tensions rise and the possibility of renewed strikes on Tehran grows.

The warning appeared in an unclassified memorandum dated October 23 from Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Axios obtained and published the memo, reporting that the intelligence was one factor behind the diplomatic drawdowns.

“Through various channels, we have received intelligence that Iran has substantially increased efforts to target U.S. personnel,” Clayton wrote. He said Iranian efforts to carry out lethal attacks against U.S. citizens had reached advanced stages in the Middle East and in several other countries.

The memo, which was also sent to CIA Director John Ratcliffe, said information about the Iranian threats was relevant to more State Department employees than had been authorized to access it.

Clayton said the intelligence had already been provided to senior State Department officials with the necessary clearances. He also offered to reduce the classification of as much of the material as possible so Rubio could share it with a broader group.

The document did not specify who might be targeted, describe the alleged operations or identify the countries outside the Middle East where Americans could face danger.

Several U.S. officials have separately confirmed the memo is authentic, including to CNN, which also obtained a copy. A U.S. official told Al Arabiya English Washington correspondent Joseph Haboush that alleged Iranian plots against American officials, combined with the risk of attacks by Iran-backed Houthis, were influencing staffing decisions at U.S. embassies operating under restrictions throughout the region.

The intelligence warning comes as the State Department scales back its diplomatic presence across the Middle East because of threats linked to Iran and its Houthi allies.

Earlier this week, Washington directed nonessential personnel and family members to leave the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, as well as the consulates in Jeddah and Dhahran, amid an increase in Houthi attacks targeting Saudi Arabia.

CNN reported Friday that staffing was also being adjusted at multiple diplomatic facilities, including posts in Bahrain and Kuwait, as U.S. officials assessed the risk of a wider regional conflict.

A U.S. official cited in the report said the department on Friday ordered personnel reductions at embassies in the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Qatar and Jordan.

“We decided that due to the threat of Houthi attacks and Iranian terror plots we need to reduce our footprint and keep only essential staff,” the official said.

MORE STORY: An Oncology Surgeon’s Daughter Still Missed Her Own Cancer Diagnosis

The precautions follow increasingly direct Iranian threats against U.S. troops and military facilities throughout the region.

On Thursday, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned that the conflict could spread to American bases if U.S. forces continued escorting ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

“The US military must know that if this trend continues, the conflict will extend to its bases in the region,” the IRGC said.

Reuters separately reported Friday that two senior Iranian security officials outlined contingency plans for a broader response if the United States or Israel resumed attacks. Those plans reportedly included strikes against undersea communications cables and military sites.

“If Iran is attacked, there will be no more red lines… from undersea cables to military bases, including covert ones,” one of the officials said.

The developments coincide with President Donald Trump’s increasingly forceful threats to resume military action against Iran. On Friday, he warned that Washington could launch another round of Operation Epic Fury unless Tehran reached an agreement with the United States.

“We may do another little Epic Fury, or they’ll agree,” Trump told supporters at a campaign rally in Fort Myers, Florida.

“If they’re smart, they’ll just say, ‘Let’s get down to business.’ But, you know, I doubt they’ll do that because perhaps they’re not smart,” he added.

Multiple outlets have reported in recent days that the Trump administration is considering renewed military strikes against Iran, potentially after the November midterm elections, with possible targets including the country’s missile and drone capabilities, energy infrastructure and nuclear facilities.

No decision to launch another operation has been announced.