Exclusive: US moving fighter jets to Middle East as Israel-Iran war rages
WASHINGTON, June 17 (Reuters) - The U.S. military is deploying more fighter aircraft to the Middle East and extending the deployment of other warplanes, bolstering U.S. military forces in the region as the war between Israel and Iran rages, three U.S. officials said.
One of the officials said the deployments include F-16, F-22 and F-35 fighter aircraft.
Two of the officials stressed the defensive nature of the deployment of fighter aircraft, which have been used to shoot down drones and projectiles.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump swats US intelligence reports on Iran's nuclear threat to align with Israel
Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence, delivered a concise verdict during congressional testimony this March: the intelligence community 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003'. As he rushed back to Washington on Tuesday morning, Donald Trump swatted aside the assessment from the official that he handpicked to deliver him information from 18 US intelligence agencies. 'I don't care what she said,' said Trump. 'I think they were very close to having one.' Trump's assessment aligned him with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, who has warned that Iran's 'imminent' plans to produce nuclear weapons required a pre-emptive strike from Israel – and, he hopes, from the United States – in order to shut down the Iranian uranium enrichment program for good. It also isolates Trump's spy chief, whom he nominated specifically because of her skepticism for past US interventions in the Middle East and of the broader intelligence community, which he has described as a 'deep state'. Gabbard sought to tamp down on a schism with Trump, telling CNN that Trump 'was saying the same thing that I said in my annual threat assessment back in March. Unfortunately too many people in the media don't care to actually read what I said.' But as the Trump administration now appears closer than ever before to a strike on Iran, Gabbard has been left out of key decision-making discussions and her assessments that Iran is not close to a nuclear breakout has become decidedly inconvenient for an administration now mulling a pre-emptive strike. 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' he wrote in a social media post on Tuesday. The US has dispatched an additional carrier group, KC-135 refueling tankers and additional fighter jets to the region. Those assets have been sent to give Trump 'more options' for a direct intervention in the conflict, US media have reported. Deliberations over the intelligence regarding Iran's breakout time to a nuclear weapon will be pored over if the US moves forward with a strike that initiates a new foreign conflict for the US that could potentially reshape the Middle East and redefine a Trump presidency that was supposed to end the US era of 'forever wars'. Israel launched airstrikes last week in the wake of an International Atomic Energy Agency report that formally declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years and said the country had enriched enough uranium to near weapons grade to potentially make nine nuclear bombs. Gen Michael Erik Kurilla, the head of US Central Command who has forcefully campaigned for a tougher stance on Iran, told members of the armed services committee in the House of Representatives last week that Iran could have enough weapons-grade uranium for 'up to 10 nuclear weapons in three weeks'. Yet a CNN report on Tuesday challenged that claim. Four sources familiar with a US intelligence assessment said that Iran was 'not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon' and that the country was 'up to three years away from being able to produce and deliver one to a target of its choosing'. The skepticism over Iran's potential for a nuclear breakout has also been reflected in Gabbard's distancing from Trump's inner circle. People often represent policy in the Trump administration and those with unpopular views find themselves on the outside looking in. Trump last Sunday held a policy discussion with all the top member of his cabinet on national security. But Gabbard was not there. Her absence was taken as a sign that US policy was shifting in a direction against Iran. 'Why was Gabbard not invited to the Camp David meeting all day?' asked Steve Bannon, a member of Trump's Maga isolationist wing that has pushed against the US launching a direct strike against Iran. 'You know why,' responded Tucker Carlson, an influential pundit in Trump's America First coalition who had slammed 'warmongers' in the administration including popular Fox News hosts like Mark Levin. Days after the Camp David meeting, Gabbard released a bizarre video in which she warned about the threat of nuclear war, saying that this is the 'reality of what's at stake, what we are facing now'. 'Because as we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before, political elite and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers,' she said. The remarks could have referred to US involvement in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. But it is with Iran that US policy appears to be changing rapidly and avowed opponents of foreign interventions appear to be falling in line in order to avoid losing clout in the Trump administration. Trump 'may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment', said vice-president JD Vance, who has publicly called on the US to avoid costly overseas interventions but has remained muted over Iran. 'That decision ultimately belongs to the president. 'But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue,' he continued. 'And having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people's goals. Whatever he does, that is his focus.'
Sky News
37 minutes ago
- Sky News
Elon Musk posts 'negative drug test results'
Elon Musk appears to have shared the results of a recent drug test following claims he abused illegal substances while campaigning for Donald Trump last year. The Tesla chief executive posted an image of the document on X, his social media platform, which suggested he had tested negative for more than a dozen drugs including ecstasy, ketamine and cocaine. The test was purportedly carried out by Fastest Labs of South Austin after it collected a urine sample from a donor called " Elon Musk" on 11 June. The billionaire wrote "lol" alongside the image, which was posted in the early hours of Tuesday morning US time. It comes after The New York Times reported in May that the SpaceX founder had taken drugs while supporting Mr Trump's presidential campaign last year. But the newspaper said it was "unclear" if he had continued to do so while working for the White House. In January 2024, The Wall Street Journal also claimed that senior figures at SpaceX and Tesla had expressed concern about his alleged drug use. Mr Musk has consistently denied the claims. When asked about The New York Times report at his last press conference in the White House, he attacked the outlet for publishing what he called "fake news". Following his post on Tuesday, Mr Musk hit out at the newspapers which reported the allegations. He wrote: "The sheer audacity of the WSJ/NYT lies is astonishing!" The tech tycoon also challenged the journalists responsible for the articles to "take drug tests and publish the results!" "They won't, because those hypocrites are guilty as sin," he added. Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Mr Musk's X announced it was suing the state of New York over a new law forcing companies to share their content moderation practices. The complaint, filed in Manhattan federal court, argued the legislation was unconstitutional.
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
Instead of ending wars, ‘America First' is being dragged into more of them
It is difficult to discern exactly what the 'big stuff' is that prompted President Trump to leave the G7 summit and return to Washington a day early. Mr Trump wouldn't say what, precisely, but he did advise the 9 million residents of Tehran to 'immediately evacuate' their homes, causing mass panic. Any lingering hopes that the president was going back to the White House to work full time on a ceasefire were extinguished when Mr Trump declared that suggestions to that effect made by the president of France were mistaken: 'I'm not looking for a ceasefire, we're looking at better than a ceasefire.' What the president does want, in his words, is 'an end, a real end, not a ceasefire,' and a 'complete give-up' by Iran. At the same time, though, the president told the world that he had not contacted the Iranians to engage in peace talks in any 'way, shape, or form' because they 'should have taken the deal that was on the table'. Given that many American diplomats have left the region – and the USS Nimitz and its carrier strike group are transferring from the Pacific – it seems plain that the US government is at least contemplating how force (or the threat of it) might have to become necessary to pursue American strategic objectives. President Trump has long been perfectly clear about what one of those prime objectives is: Iran 'just can't have a nuclear weapon'. On that point, at least, he has the backing of his allies, endorsed in the G7 communique, which added that Iran is a 'source of terror'. As is his style, weeks ago he tried a bold – if unlikely – diplomatic initiative to strike a deal, with direct talks in Rome between American and Iranian officials. These were stalling even before Israel started its bombardment of Iran's labs, uranium enrichment facilities and other targets – and the US-Iran talks have since broken down. Yet even now, there is speculation that – pressured by Israel's actions and backed with a major US naval taskforce heading towards the Persian Gulf – Mr Trump may try to use this opportunity to achieve a breakthrough deal. Asked by reporters if he might dispatch his vice-president, JD Vance, and roaming negotiator Steve Witkoff to Iran for this purpose, Mr Trump did not rule it out. 'Peace through strength' is a slogan that the president frequently uses, but thus far in his presidency, it has seldom worked out in practice. This time, the world must hope, will be different. If diplomacy fails? Mr Trump could simply allow Israel to continue its efforts to eliminate Iran's nuclear capabilities, such as they are, and to so destabilise the theocratic regime that it is overthrown by the Iranian people. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has made no secret of his wish for 'regime change', addressing the 'Persian' people directly and having his photograph taken with the exiled son of the last shah of Iran, who was toppled by the ayatollahs in the revolution of 1979. Subcontracting the task of disarming Iran and persuading the people of Iran to replace their government with a more palatable, peace-loving alternative, all without any direct US involvement, must have some attractions for American foreign policy (though Mr Trump reportedly vetoed an assassination attempt on the supreme leader of Iran). That carries significant risks, however, which will be apparent to the defence, security and state department officials briefing Mr Trump. For some weeks, Israel has used the George W Bush playbook as applied in the last Gulf war to justify its attacks in Iran – a pre-emptive military strike to remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and, as the Americans did with Saddam Hussein, offering regime change as an alternative to destruction and defeat. A similar ultimatum is now being issued by Mr Trump, with Israeli backing – give up your nukes and you can stay in power. If not... But the world knows how that Iraqi story ended – a fractured country that fell into civil war and the rule of Isis, an even more murderous and dangerous entity than the Baathists. The collapse of Iran into chaos and civil war would be a far greater disaster for the world than anything that has happened in Iraq, Libya, Syria or Afghanistan in terms of the consequences for turning a stable (if malign) state into a failed one. Iran is in another league of military and political importance. If there was fighting for control of Iran – and the ayatollahs cannot be expected to meekly slink away to their holy places – then that would soon spread to Yemen, and restart the horrific proxy war there with Saudi Arabia. Russia remains Iran's friend and ally, and relies on its Shahed drones that proved so effective in Ukraine. What would Vladimir Putin do to protect his interests? If America intervenes, or acquiesces in Israel's escalating campaign, the regional conflagration so long feared between Israel and Iran would not remain a private dispute between the two regional superpowers of Israel and Iran, not least because Tehran's client terrorists in Hezbollah, the Houthi rebels and, above all, Hamas will continue to be involved. The more nations and groups become involved, the more unpredictable events will become, and the harder it will be for America to control them. Instead of ending far-away wars, this 'America First' is being dragged into more of them. That's very much 'big stuff' – and big risks.
