The FBI announced on Tuesday that it had disrupted a sophisticated attack targeting the UFC fight on the White House lawn on Sunday, with Fox News reporting that one suspect allegedly told investigators that the attack was targeting “capitalist elites,” “billionaires” and politicians who received donations from AIPAC.

FBI Director Kash Patel said on X that multiple individuals outside the D.C. area were in custody in connection with the attack in what he said was a multi-state operation. Fox News reported that five arrests had been made and 23 people were identified as being involved.

In an announcement, the Department of Justice said that the investigation is still ongoing and that arrests were carried out in Ohio, Missouri, Nebraska and California.

According to a criminal complaint released by the DOJ, one of the suspects, Tycen Proper, “appeared to identify potential US Congressional targets due to their support for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), noting donations the members previously received from AIPAC” and identified several specific leaders he planned to focus on because they “were supportive of Israel.”

The targets included Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and Jim Justice (R-WV), Rep. Carol Miller (R-WV) and West Virginia state Del. Tristan Leavitt.

According to the complaint, another one of the suspects identified Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who some claimed would be attending the fight, as another primary target, alongside President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Elon Musk.

According to Fox News, the attack plot called for attacking buildings near the event using explosive-laden drones, forcing an evacuation from the UFC event into the path of a sniper team, followed by an attempt to storm the White House gate.

Fox News reported that authorities have identified no foreign connection to the attempted attack.

One of Israel’s most urgent emerging security threats is not a sophisticated missile or advanced weapons system, but a small, cheap drone that can be bought online and easily assembled.

Hezbollah’s use of first-person view drones (FPVs) — a battlefield tactic widely utilized in the Russia-Ukraine war and now adopted by the Iran-backed terror group — has caused Israeli casualties, threatens civilians and exposed vulnerabilities in Israel’s air-defense systems, including the Iron Dome.

The drones are small and inexpensive, but difficult to detect, experts say. The growing threat has caught the IDF off guard and is forcing Israeli officials to rethink how they protect soldiers, border communities and critical defense infrastructure during the fragile partial ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.

Last Wednesday, a drone attack near the Israeli border community of Shomera killed one soldier and wounded two others. Since the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon began in April, experts have recorded more than 100 drone attacks on communities inside Israel. On Monday, an IDF soldier was killed in southern Lebanon after being struck by an explosive drone sent by Hezbollah. 

“These are very simple, unsophisticated drones,” Yaakov Katz, a senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute, told Jewish Insider. “Imagine a person can watch with goggles almost and be the eyes of the drone, see what the drone sees and literally fly it to wherever it wants its target to be.”

Experts said that Hezbollah can purchase commercial drones, or assemble them inside Lebanon using imported parts. But despite their low cost and relative simplicity, the drones are proving difficult for Israel to defend against. 

“These are small, they fly very low, so they’re not seen or detected mostly by radar,” Katz said. “Even if you saw them, you can’t necessarily intercept them or destroy them with traditional means of scrambling their radar signal or other electronic warfare capabilities. That is what’s making this so complicated for Israel.”

The drones have been particularly effective against Israeli soldiers operating in the open, Katz said, turning what was once a secondary concern into “one of the most pressing issues for Israel.” He noted that the drones come in various sizes and carry explosives, including grenades, that are flown directly into Israeli soldiers or other targets.

David Daoud, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said this appears to be the “first real conflict” in which Hezbollah has employed these kinds of drones at scale. 

“These drones are basically loitering around for a while,” Daoud said. “They’re not moving at particularly high speeds and you just have Israeli soldiers completely unaware. If you can’t hear the drone, if you don’t know that it’s there until it’s too late, it’s too late.”

Daoud said he has seen footage of drones flying within “a foot or two” of Israeli soldiers who appeared unaware of their presence. That low detectability, he said, can increase the danger not only to soldiers but also to civilians and infrastructure.

“This kind of feeds into the idea that their detectability is very low by design,” Daoud said. “Hezbollah has also talked about disabling some of the early warning systems. If Israel’s Red Alert is knocked out in a certain area and then Hezbollah fires a barrage of 100 rockets, suddenly people don’t have the ability to know that the attack is incoming. You increase the possibility of Israeli casualties.”

Katz said the threat has also taken on a deeply personal dimension for many Israelis. “I have two nephews who are in Lebanon right now,” he said. “Everyone knows someone in Lebanon and you’re concerned, and that creates a level of anxiety.”

“Unfortunately, it’s almost every day that we wake up, or in the middle of the day, get reports of another soldier who’s been killed by one of these drones,” he added. “It just wasn’t as important, but now it is, because it’s killing people. That now made it one of the most pressing issues for Israel.”

Ari Cicurel, associate director of foreign policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, said the drones are also effective because they allow operators to strike with “greater precision and accuracy.” He said that Hezbollah has deployed FPV drones similar to those used by Russia against Ukraine, adding that the group has adopted fiber‑optic control cables to mimic Russian tactics and evade electronic countermeasures.

“Even if they are smaller, the operator can focus in on sites, loiter, wait for an individual or a site to be a desirable target, and then hit them,” Cicurel said. “What we’re seeing in particular recently is adding fiber optic cables to them. That is another clear lesson that both Iran and Hezbollah have learned from Russia’s use of these drones against Ukraine.”

He said the cables help prevent electronic countermeasures from disrupting the drone’s communications, creating “a greater challenge” for Israeli forces trying to intercept them.

Daoud said another factor complicating the issue for Israel is that Hezbollah’s drones are relatively easy to import from abroad or produce domestically, which makes it easier to conceal them.

“These things can probably be produced [regularly] given how cheap they are, how easy they are to manufacture, given how unsophisticated they are,” Daoud said. “When we talk about these factories, we’re not talking about something that requires a high level of sophistication. I could sit at my desk and make 30 of these a day.”

One of the most concerning targets is the Iron Dome, Israel’s primary air-defense system. Footage released by Hezbollah earlier this month appeared to show a drone striking an Israeli Iron Dome launcher, though experts said the extent of the damage remains unclear.

“In Hezbollah’s propaganda they talked about having drones that would be able to disarm the Iron Dome and that’s obviously an issue,” Daoud said. “The Iron Dome operates off of a radar. If you’ve made these drones able to go undetected by radar, then a few well-placed drones could either throw off Iron Dome or disable an Iron Dome battery or disable the radar.”

“The more these drones are developed by Hezbollah to become more able to evade radar, the more of a problem you’re going to have when it comes to Iron Dome,” he added. “Israel doesn’t have thousands of Iron Dome batteries. Most of them have been deployed to the north. If Hezbollah is able to knock them out, then that’s a massive security risk for Israel.”

Still, Daoud noted that the Iron Dome remains the “most effective” counter to FPVs despite the liability. 

Experts also said Israel was not fully prepared for the scope of the FPV drone threat and is now trying to adapt quickly. But they cautioned that there is unlikely to be a single solution.

“I think they were underprepared,” Katz said. “What Israel underestimated was the extent, the numbers, the ranges and its inability to defend itself from them. And that is how we found ourselves in this current situation.”

Israel has already adopted some defensive measures used by Ukraine, including establishing protective netting around military vehicles. However, Daoud said there is a trade-off.

“If the IDF decides to put all of its Humvees in Lebanon in protective netting, that means they’re going to move slower, and when they move slower they’re open to different threats from Hezbollah,” Daoud said. “So the question is what tactic do you adopt that plugs up one problem and doesn’t open you up to another problem.”

Other options could include targeting Hezbollah launch areas and strongholds in Lebanon, Daoud said, though he cautioned that Israel’s room to maneuver could be limited by diplomatic considerations, including pressure from Washington to halt hostilities in Lebanon amid negotiations with Iran.

“I think it goes back to the defensive adaptations in terms of needing to prepare for a variety of defenses against the kind of projectiles that our adversaries could be launching,” Cicurel said, noting that he believed “putting netting around air defenses” would “prevent drones from reaching them.” 

Experts said it remains unclear whether Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad or other Iranian-backed groups will adopt the same tactics in future conflicts. But Katz said Israel cannot assume the threat will remain limited to Hezbollah.

“It would be negligent to think that they [other Iranian-backed groups] do not have it,” Katz said. “It is easy. It can be bought off of Amazon or at a drone store. You can buy parts and smuggle them in and assemble them on your own without anyone even knowing.”

That leaves Israel facing a difficult question: how to defend against a threat that is cheap, widely available and hard to detect, but potentially devastating when used effectively.

“This has to be something that needs to be thought about very seriously,” Katz added, “… and I would even say with urgency.”

The tenuous ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran came close to collapsing overnight after the Islamic Republic fired 15 missiles and four drones at the United Arab Emirates. The question now is whether hostilities will resume in the coming days — just before next week’s major summit between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, slated to take place in Beijing.

Monday’s Iranian missile fire came amid ramped-up rhetoric from both Tehran and Washington over the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and as the U.S. launched “Project Freedom” to assist vessels attempting to transit through the waterway. One of the drones fired yesterday by Iran hit the UAE’s Fujairah Oil Industry Zone, sparking a fire that injured three Indian workers. 

Iran’s attack on the UAE was widely condemned, with Saudi, Qatari, British and Indian officials denouncing the renewed strikes.

CENTCOM head Adm. Brad Cooper touted the initial success of the Project Freedom naval effort, which on its first day protected two U.S.-flagged ships traveling through the strait. It’s unclear the degree to which the endeavor will help with the resumption of normal activities in the waterway, which normally sees some 120 vessels passing through each day.

Later Monday, two U.S. naval ships came under heavy fire from Iran as they navigated through the passage. Iran claimed to have hit a warship, which CENTCOM denied. Trump told Fox News’ Trey Yingst that Iran would be “wipe[d] off the face of the earth” if it targeted ships being escorted through the strait. The Wall Street Journal reported that the president “for days has toggled between two competing impulses: severely punishing Iran for failing to abandon its nuclear work, and avoiding a significant escalation that could draw the U.S. deeper into a Middle East conflict.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, for his part, criticized Project Freedom — which he referred to as “Project Deadlock” — claiming that Pakistan-brokered talks between Washington and Tehran “are making progress” and warning that the U.S. and the UAE “should be wary of being dragged back into quagmire by ill-wishers.”


Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif condemned the strikes on the UAE — albeit without mentioning Iran. “It is absolutely essential that the ceasefire be upheld and respected,” Sharif posted on X, “to allow necessary diplomatic space for dialogue leading to enduring peace and stability in the region.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is expected to address the situation with Iran when he speaks to reporters from the White House briefing room at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, the first press briefing since White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt went on maternity leave.

Later this week, Rubio is set to head to the Vatican to meet with Pope Leo XIV amid tensions between the Holy See and the Trump administration over the pontiff’s comments on the war in Iran. It’s unclear if the trip will still happen if the situation in the Gulf further devolves.

The bigger question is what will happen next week, when Trump is slated to meet with China’s Xi Jinping in Beijing — a summit already delayed once due to the war. Over the weekend, Beijing told Chinese firms to ignore U.S. sanctions on five Iran-linked oil refiners in the country.Beijing has attempted to play both sides of the conflict, encouraging Iran to pursue diplomacy while also providing the Islamic Republic with commercial support for use in the event of a resumption of hostilities. Should the summit take place, all eyes will be on Xi to see if he attempts to play Trump, as well.

A group of six moderate House Democrats introduced an alternative war powers resolution on Iran, which — rather than demanding an immediate end to the ongoing U.S. operation — would give the administration 30 days in which to either end the campaign or come to Congress to seek approval for continued strikes.

The resolution is sponsored by Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Greg Landsman (D-OH), Jared Golden (D-ME) and Jim Costa (D-CA). It signals concern from the group of hawkish pro-Israel House Democrats about the efforts by their colleagues to demand an immediate end to operations in Iran, though at least some of the sponsors of the resolution still plan to vote for the existing war powers resolution this week as well.

“Iran is actively firing drones and ballistic missiles at U.S. troops, our embassies, allies, and is targeting civilians across the region,” Gottheimer said on X on Tuesday. “This new Democratic War Powers Resolution will uphold Congress’s constitutional authority — while also ensuring the U.S. can defend our troops, embassies, and allies from Iranian aggression.”

Landsman said that the resolution “allows for the short-term, targeted strikes on the regime’s missiles and bombs, requires Trump to come to Congress for a vote, and specifies ‘no ground troops.’ Destroy the [regime’s] ability to destroy more lives or cause any more mayhem or violence. Nothing more.”

In a press release, Gottheimer’s office pointed to concerns that the resolution led by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), which is set to receive a House vote this week, would pull out U.S. forces even as Iran is targeting U.S. troops, assets, facilities and allies. “It is vital that we allow for a safe transition, that protects our service members, embassies, and allies, not a potentially precarious withdrawal,” the statement reads.

Lawmakers supporting the war powers resolutions in both chambers have largely not articulated what an immediate end to the war would entail or the potential consequences of abruptly pulling out U.S. forces.

The new resolution includes specific language forbidding the administration from deploying ground troops into Iran “in a combat role, including for regime change, or for occupation unless explicitly authorized by Congress,” but includes an exception for search and rescue and intelligence operations.

Gottheimer’s press release argues that an “open-ended commitment” and a potential commitment of ground troops would both be “unacceptable,” while also warning that “it is equally unwise to act in a precipitous way and endanger America’s security and put our service members in additional harm’s way.”

The Gottheimer-led resolution also contains language that would allow the U.S. to continue to defend its facilities, personnel and allies from “imminent attack;” keep forces in the region “for defensive purposes” and who are engaged in other missions and continue sharing intelligence with partners.

The war powers resolution that is set to receive a House vote later this week does not include similar language to specifically allow for continued intelligence sharing and defensive operations protecting allies, which could raise concerns for pro-Israel Democrats.

The Senate version of the resolution does include such protections.

While Gottheimer and Landsman have said they oppose the Massie-Khanna resolution, Panetta said on Tuesday that he would support it, despite also backing the Gottheimer resolution.

“The President has not abided by our Constitution when it comes to invading foreign sovereign states,” Panetta said in a statement. “That is why Congress must fulfill our obligations under the constitution by supporting this week’s bipartisan War Powers Resolution.”

Asked about the Gottheimer resolution, Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, emphasized that the Massie-Khanna legislation will be coming to the floor on Wednesday. “That’s the one we have. This is continuing right now. We need to vote on this resolution tomorrow. I’m not considering any other [resolution].”

Jeremy Bash, a former chief of staff at the Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency under the Obama administration, told JI that the Khanna-Massie resolution is reckless.

“We have U.S. servicemembers in harm’s way. Some are flying combat sorties as we speak. We can’t call them in the cockpit and say ‘Congress has prohibited you from completing this mission. Please turn around and stop what you’re doing.’ If that sounds a little strange, it is because the Ro Khanna resolution requires that very strange outcome,” Bash said. “An immediate withdrawal is dangerous for our troops. Any pullback needs to be orderly and safe. We need to give the combatant commander at least a few weeks to do this safely.”

He said that Congress can and should be involved in debating the war and providing oversight, but “for a war powers resolution to be credible, it has to build in several days for the commanders to act responsibly to protect their troops. This cannot be done immediately.”

Bash called Gottheimer’s resolution a “very sensible alternative that will protect our troops.”

Daniel Silverberg, a former advisor to Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), emphasized that a similar effort to cut off the U.S.’ Libya operations led by “one of the most ardent anti-war activists in the House,” then-Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), included a 15-day wind-down provision. 

“The Massie-Khanna resolution lacks it. The notion that Democrats would not, at a minimum, support that amendment to allow for a responsible withdrawal of forces is problematic from a national security perspective and from a messaging perspective,” Silverberg said.

Amb. Daniel Shapiro, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and senior State and Defense Department official, said that the resolution could serve as a “fallback” if the Massie-Khanna resolution fails, one which might have a chance of attracting GOP support.

“The 30 day clock … arguably addresses a concern that some members might have about troops who are actively engaged and in the field, and would need some window of time … to wind down and safely conclude operations,” Shapiro said.