A discussion by high-ranking US security officials about US air strikes on Yemen has been published in full by the Atlantic magazine.

The group chat on the Signal app mistakenly included the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg.

After holding back some excerpts of the chat in an earlier article, he decided on Wednesday to publish almost the entire exchange after senior officials insisted there was no classified information shared in the group.

Those statements “have led us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions”, Goldberg wrote.

The messages, however, need some unpicking. Here are three of them with some analysis.

These messages provide details of the US military’s plan for the Yemen strikes – described as a “package”, a military term which refers to a set of aircraft, weapons systems and intelligence gathering devices that will participate in an operation.

“The idea this wasn’t classified information at the time is inconceivable,” Glenn Gerstell, the former general counsel of the National Security Agency (NSA), told the BBC.

He added that it may have been declassified afterwards but any imminent military action involving American troops would have been classified at the time it was shared.

The messages from Hegseth note what time F-18 fighter aircraft are scheduled to launch, as well as when strikes will take place and in what timeframe “trigger-based” attacks could occur.

In this context, “trigger” refers to a set of parameters that have to be acknowledged before weapons are deployed. It could be a visual reference point, like a mobile phone lighting up.

This information is considered highly sensitive.

Philip Ingram, a former military intelligence officer with the British Army, told the BBC that similar information “falls firmly into the bracket of what would have been classified top secret”.

“You can practically plot where the aircraft are going to come from,” he added.

In the wake of the chat’s revelations, the White House and other US officials have argued that this information does not constitute a “war plan”.

In a post on X, Hegseth said: “The Atlantic released the so-called ‘war plans’ and those ‘plans’ include: No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods.”

In this part of the group chat, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz provides an update on the strike – which in military parlance is called a battle damage assessment, or BDA.

Waltz notes that the target building has collapsed, and that the US military had earlier had positive identification of the target – a Houthi “missile guy” – walking into the building, which was believed to be his girlfriend’s residence.

In his message, Waltz congratulates Pete – referring to Hegseth, as well as the IC, shorthand for “intelligence community” and Kurilla, a reference to Michael Kurilla, a US Army General who oversees Central Command, a regional combatant command with responsibility over the Middle East and parts of Central and South Asia.

The messages do not reveal how the target’s whereabouts or movements were tracked.

A military expert contacted by the BBC – but who wished to remain nameless – suggested that a combination of aerial platforms, technological tracking capabilities or human intelligence on the ground could have been used, or a combination of various sources.

At least 53 people were killed in the initial wave of US airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen, which struck more than 30 targets including training facilities, drone infrastructure, as well as weapons manufacturing and storage sites and command and control centres, including one in which the Pentagon said several unmanned aerial vehicle experts were located.

It is unclear which of the targets Waltz was referring to in the group chat.

Another potentially sensitive message comes from Joe Kent, a former special operations soldier and failed congressional candidate who was nominated by Trump to be the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

In his message, Kent refers to Israel carrying out their own strikes.

The Israeli military has repeatedly struck Houthi targets in Yemen since the beginning of the war in Gaza, in retaliation for Houthi missile and drone attacks on Israeli targets conducted in support of Hamas.

The most recent attacks took place on 19 and 26 December of last year.

According to Kent, the Israeli government would seek to “replenish” any weapons stocks used in further raids, although he believes that to be a “minor factor”.

A slightly more sensitive message follows from CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who notes that the US is “mobilising assets” to help a strike, but that a delay would “not negatively impact” the agency’s work in Yemen.

“Additional time would be used to identify better starting points for coverage on Houthi leadership,” he wrote.

Assets, in this context, could refer to CIA-run spies on the ground in Yemen, or technological means such as surveillance drone flights.

Mick Mulroy, a former deputy assistant secretary of defence and ex-CIA paramilitary officer, said that Ratcliffe’s message was very sensitive.

“Essentially, we don’t want to share where the CIA is focused,” he added.

Ratcliffe told a House hearing on Wednesday that he did not transmit classified information.

(With additional reporting from Nomia Iqbal and Ruth Comerford)