Satellite Imagery Shows Evacuation at Largest U.S. Air Base in Middle East
Satellite imagery showed U.S. aircraft have vacated a key air base in Qatar, in another sign that a confrontation with Iran could be imminent.
Newsweek has reached out to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) for comment.
The disappearance of the aircraft could indicate that strikes on Iran are seeing as a growing possibility and that therefore Iranian attacks on U.S. bases are seen as a bigger threat. It also comes as a significant movement of tankers and vessels has been taking place in the Middle East since Iran launched retaliatory missile attacks on Israel in response to the targeting of its nuclear, missile and military sites.
The U.S. has also deployed additional military equipment to the region.
Satellite images shared by open-intelligence analysts on X, formerly Twitter, revealed that Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, a key hub for U.S. and British aerial tankers, surveillance, and transport aircraft, appeared empty.
The key base holds the U.S. CENTCOM Forward Headquarters. The U.S. Embassy in Qatar has also issued two security warnings against going to the base.
The U.S. began evacuating nonessential diplomats and their families from the American embassy in Israel earlier this week. There are around 700,000 Americans or dual citizens currently in Israel and thousands more in Iran and neighboring Middle East countries.
The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) said launched a wave of strikes on Thursday, targeting the inactive nuclear reactor in Arak, a nuclear weapons development site near Natanz, ballistic missile & air defense production facilities, radar systems & missile storage sites.
U.S. State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce in press briefing Tuesday: "When it comes to how quickly people can expect a dynamic – the American government, the State Department, our military – you've seen all of these assets, all of these departments involved in this dynamic in one fashion or another – are working exclusively for the safety of this nation and the safety of the American people, wherever they may be."
Karen Sudkamp, Associate Director of the Infrastructure, Immigration, and Security Operations Program at RAND said in published Q&A: "The United States evacuated nonessential personnel prior to Israel's strike from Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates-countries that could receive initial attacks against U.S. personnel should Tehran choose to include American targets in its response. U.S. naval assets are also moving towards the Middle East as defensive forces."
A decision from the president regarding the next course of action on Iran could decide whether or not there is an attack by U.S. forces or whether curbs on Iran's nuclear program can be agreed through diplomacy.
Related Articles
U.S. Issues Security Warning for Biggest Middle East BaseIran Starts Firing Heavier Missiles in Israel AttacksUS Ally Reveals Chinese Military Activity Near American BaseIsrael Says Iran's Supreme Leader 'Cannot Continue to Exist': Live Updates
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Intercept
18 minutes ago
- The Intercept
How Democratic Leaders Quietly Support Trump's March to War With Iran
Support Us © THE INTERCEPT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Some Democrats are fighting to stop war with Iran, but party leaders are silently acquiescing or, worse, supporting an attack. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., conducts a news conference in the U.S. Capitol in Washington on May 20, 2025. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images As President Donald Trump barrels toward a direct war with Iran, the most powerful Democrats in Congress are issuing statements that are at best tepid and confusing. At worst, they are cheering escalation. Even with some Democrats on Capitol Hill pushing for a War Powers Resolution and other legislation to stop Trump from attacking without congressional approval, the Democratic Party's most powerful politicians refuse to mount any meaningful opposition to a strike. Many outright favor direct U.S. involvement in yet another regime change war. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the most powerful Democrat in the Senate, where he is the minority leader, presents himself as a major opponent of Trump. As recently as June 15, for example, he boasted about his participation in the No Kings Day mass protest against Trump. Yet when it comes to the prospect of a direct war with Iran, Schumer is not only supporting Trump, but less than three weeks ago was goading the administration to be 'tough' on Iran and not make any 'side deals' without Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's approval. — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) June 2, 2025 'The United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response,' he said in a follow-up statement released on June 13, after Israel attacked Iran. 'The Iranian regime's stated policy has long been to destroy Israel and Jewish communities around the world.' Schumer did include a perfunctory nod to talks — 'a strong, unrelenting diplomatic effort backed by meaningful leverage.' The 'meaningful leverage' in question, however, is bombing Iran — something Schumer tacitly supports. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., the most powerful Democrat in the House, responded to Israel's attack with a toothless statement that was vaguely supportive of war and packed with every pro-Israel cliche in the book. 'Our commitment to Israel's security is ironclad,' he said. 'It is clear that the Iranian regime poses a grave threat to the entire free world. There is no circumstance where Iran can be permitted to become a nuclear power.' Jeffries, too, mentioned diplomacy, but with no urgency. 'As soon as is practical, it is imperative to find a rigorous diplomatic path forward and avoid any situation where U.S. troops are put in harm's way,' he said. As with Schumer, 'diplomacy' is a box to be checked, a vague normative preference, but not a demand — and certainly not a requirement. A host of powerful Democrats issued strikingly similar statements. They repeatedly reinforced every premise of Trump's pending bombing campaign, namely the alleged imminent danger posed by Iran. This premise is undermined by U.S. intelligence assessments and leaks to both the Wall Street Journal and CNN, which suggest Iran hadn't decided to make a bomb and would be three years away from producing one if it did. If all of the statements look similar, it's because, according to DropSite and the American Prospect, many members of Congress are simply copy and pasting approved language from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the flagship pro-Israel lobby group. These outlets found that, in statements on congressional websites and social media, nearly 30 members of Congress used nearly identical language about how they 'stand with Israel' and another 35 gave their unequivocal support in similar terms but without the magic words. Among the influential Democrats pledging their unflinching support for Israel was Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Like many others, Meeks hauled out a talking point about how 'Israel has a right to defend itself' — meant to front-run any discussion of Israeli aggression by asserting the premise that any and all military action is inherently defensive. It's a dubious premise in most contexts, but especially Orwellian in this one since Israel preemptively attacked Iran based on claims of an 'imminent threat' in direct contradiction of US intelligence. Even if one thinks Israel has a 'right to defend itself' in the abstract, under no neutral reading of international law is Israel doing so by bombing another country without legal basis to do so. The decidedly unhelpful approaches by powerful Democrats don't end there. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH, influential members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, respectively, both issued mealy-mouthed statements trying to split the baby between 'diplomacy' rhetoric and reinforcing every pretense for U.S. involvement in Israel's bombing of Iran. These non-positions — or worse, positions in favor of unprovoked, almost certainly illegal war — are notable precisely because there are some lawmakers who are at least trying to do something to stop a direct, all-out conflict between the U.S. and Iran. According to the latest count by Prem Thakker, 37 members of Congress have thrown their weight behind some kind of effort to stop war. These fall into two camps. The first is a resolution in both the House and Senate that invokes the 1973 War Powers Act, which says that only Congress can declare war, a principle that has been routinely violated by U.S. presidents. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., is leading this push in the Senate, where few cosponsors have signed on. (Someone with knowledge of the effort told us that the organizers aren't accepting co-sponsors in a bid to gain bipartisan support first.) Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., are leading the sister effort in the House, and it has 28 supporters total, including Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. D-N.Y. A total of 27, or 12.7 percent, of House Democrats have lent the bill their support. There is another effort afoot, too: the No War Against Iran Act that was already in motion before Israel attacked Iran on June 13, though it was introduced after the attacks began. The Senate bill, spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., would prevent federal funds from being used for a war that's not approved by Congress. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., are among its eight Senate supporters. Democratic leaders, however, are leaving their colleagues out to dry. Schumer, for instance, declined to join Sanders's bill as a cosponsor — despite having cosponsored the same effort in 2020. This tacit and open support for Trump's war aren't limited to active leadership; the upper echelons of the party establishment have been noticeably silent. Democratic elites by and large agree with both Israel's unprovoked attacks on Iran and Trump's direct involvement. Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama haven't publicly opposed Trump's reckless threats and build-up to war with Iran. Obama, for example, has re-emerged into the spotlight — but made no mention of Iran or Trump's push for war during a public appearance this week. Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton — despite frequently criticizing Trump for his military parade, detainment of a U.S. senator, and anti-abortion policies — hasn't spoken in opposition to a US war with Iran. And, likewise, 2024 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, who has been speaking out against Trump, has yet to publicly criticize Trump's build up to bombing Iran. Surveying these responses — somewhere between muted disinterest and consent — there's only one plausible conclusion: Democratic elites by and large agree with both Israel's unprovoked attacks on Iran and Trump's direct involvement in this potentially catastrophic regime change war. It's unlikely most Democratic hawks will come out in open support of an attack that carries such political risks; like with Iraq 20 years ago, things could quickly go off the rails. Yet, even as party leaders seek to burnish their credentials as the 'resistance' to Trump, they're tacitly, and sometimes openly, giving Trump a green light to lurch America into yet another open-ended war of choice. Join The Conversation
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Ex-NATO commander sees 2 in 3 chance Trump strikes Iran
Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis on Thursday said he sees a two in three chance that President Trump strikes Iran. 'I think it's a close call for the president,' Stavridis told CNN's Pamela Brown on 'The Situation Room,' in an interview highlighted by Mediaite. 'At this point, Pamela, I would say there's a two in three chance he will go ahead and strike.' 'I think there's a one in three chance he'll give it a bit more time and see how diplomacy plays out. You can make a case on either side of that decision,' he added. President Trump and his administration have mulled the possibility of stepping into the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel, which kicked off a week ago. The president has hinted multiple times in the last week at possible U.S. participation. The president is expected to come to a conclusion on whether to go ahead with direct action against Iran within two weeks, the president said Thursday in a message given by a spokesperson. 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiation that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go in the next two weeks,' Trump said in a statement, which White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt read aloud. Thursday polling from The Washington Post found that nearly half of Americans, 45 percent, said they would not back U.S. intervention in Iran. The two Middle Eastern have traded tit-for-tar strikes for several days, which also prompted nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. to collapse. The administration began talks with Iran in April, holding five rounds of negotiations throughout the spring. This conflict also broke out amid already heightened tensions in the region over Israel's ongoing war in Gaza, which started in late 2023.
Boston Globe
23 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump travel restrictions bar residents needed at US hospitals
'If international medical graduates can't start their medical residencies on time on July 1, the ramifications are so far-reaching that it is really unconscionable,' said Kimberly Pierce Burke, executive director of the Alliance of Independent Academic Medical Centers. Senior residents leave hospitals in June and go on to start their careers, she noted. Hospitals rely on new residents to replenish their ranks. 'If they don't come on July 1, that leaves a hole in the patient care team,' Burke said. 'Who's going to pick up the slack?' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up On May 27, the Trump administration suspended new interview appointments for foreign nationals applying for J-1 visas. The visas, for participants in cultural or educational exchange programs, are used by most medical residents arriving from overseas. Advertisement On Wednesday, the State Department lifted the pause on visa appointments, according to an official who spoke anonymously to discuss an internal policy change. It was not immediately clear how many, or how quickly, physicians could be granted their visas. The process now includes 'enhanced social media vetting,' intended to ferret out potential security risks, the official said. The administration also has banned or restricted travel to the United States from 19 countries. The restrictions may be extended to an additional 36 countries, including many African nations, if they do not comply with U.S. demands regarding overstayed visas and security concerns. Advertisement The bans and restrictions were motivated by a commitment 'to protecting our nation and its citizens by upholding the highest standard of national security and public safety through our visa process,' the State Department official said. Foreign doctors from countries covered by the bans and other restrictions could request a 'national interest exception,' according to the State Department. It was not immediately clear how that process would unfold. The American medical system relies heavily on physicians from other countries. One in five U.S. physicians was born and educated overseas, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. New doctors from other countries account for 1 in 6 medical residents and specializing fellows at U.S. teaching hospitals. In 2024, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates sponsored more than 15,500 doctors from more than 150 countries to fill residency or fellowship training spots at 770 hospitals. Related : Residents are new medical school graduates who complete their training by working for several years under the supervision of more experienced doctors, gaining experience and acquiring the skills needed for various specialties. They work up to 80 hours a week on average, earning relatively low salaries. Residents are the foot soldiers of hospitals, critical to their operations, said Dr. Douglas DeLong, a semiretired physician in upstate New York who has worked in academic training programs. 'If you're a patient in a hospital, the resident is the first doctor you see in the morning,' DeLong said. Many foreign medical residents stay and build their careers in the United States. Most go into primary care fields such as internal medicine, family medicine and pediatrics, areas of shortage that American medical graduates tend to avoid. Advertisement Many of the 6,653 noncitizen doctors accepted for residency positions in the United States this year had already secured visa appointments before May 27. Those from banned countries who are already in the country are able to remain. But an estimated 1,000 medical residents were not able to obtain visas allowing them to work in the United States. The vacancies will have disparate effects on hospitals, depending how heavily reliant they are on foreign medical talent. At Brookdale Hospital Medical Center in the Brooklyn borough of New York City, people queued up for emergency care Monday. The lobby thrummed with visitors clutching bouquets of roses, and patients nodded off on benches, waiting to be seen. Like many hospitals in underserved communities, Brookdale relies heavily on international medical graduates who are not U.S. citizens to staff the medical and pediatrics floors and outpatient clinics. 'It's a wait-and-watch situation,' Dr. Christos Paras, who oversees the residency program, said in an interview. 'We just don't know what the impact will be.' 'We have residents from literally all over the world,' he added. 'I am not exaggerating — every continent.' Brookdale's internal medicine residency program relies on foreign medical graduates to staff about 90% of its 55 positions. So far, two noncitizens have been blocked from entering the country, said Dr. Conrad Fischer, director of the program. 'If I am missing two or three people, I can go out and get the spots filled,' Fischer added. 'But next year, we're not talking about missing two or three — we're talking about missing thousands.' Advertisement If the travel restrictions are maintained, 'it would gut the program,' he said. Dr. Christos Paras, who oversees Brookdale's residency program, at the hospital on Monday. Paras said that Brookdale doesn't know "what the impact will be" on Trump's travel ban. NICOLE CRAINE/NYT Hospitals and clinics in rural areas of the country already struggle to recruit graduates of U.S. medical schools to their residency programs. They rely heavily on international graduates. New foreign doctors are not taking residency positions away from American medical school graduates. Just the opposite: This year, there were about 40,000 residency positions offered through the national match system, but only 28,000 graduates of U.S. medical schools. Foreign residents fill a crucial labor shortage. Hospitals are not allowed to overwork residents and may lose their accreditation as medical teaching institutions if they do. An insufficient number of residents could also cost them Medicare funds tied to graduate medical education. The noncitizen international medical graduates who make it to U.S. training programs are 'well-trained, well-qualified and motivated,' DeLong said. 'This is the new generation of physicians for Americans,' he added. 'These are the physicians who will take care of us as we age. They are the future of medicine.' This article originally appeared in .
