US bombers line up at Diego Garcia base as Iran strike looms
The airbase that could be used to launch bunker-busting strikes on Iran has seen an influx of heavy American bombers and fighters.
Satellite images taken three days ago show the presence of four B-52s that can technically drop the 13,600kg GBU-57 bomb needed to penetrate Iran's underground nuclear network.
They were spotted by commercial satellite imagery company Planet Labs, and traces how the balance of aircraft at the base has changed as the situation in the Middle East deteriorated.
Six F-15 multirole warplanes have also arrived in recent days and would be used to protect the airbase from Iran drone or cruise missile attack.
Six KC-135 tankers are also there, giving America the option to refuel aircraft on the approach to Iran if required.
There is also the prospect that with aircraft movement into Diego Garcia remaining fluid, B-2 Spirit stealth bombers could also land there, having been spotted in recent months.
Diego Garcia, the largest of the Chagos Islands, has been used as the site of a joint UK-US military base since the 1970s due to its strategically important position in the Indian Ocean.
The UK recently signed a deal to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, with an agreement to lease Diego Garcia for £101 million each year for the next 99 years. Critics of the deal said the UK risks losing an important strategic presence in the Indian Ocean.
Diego Garcia would likely be used as a base for a 'stand-off' attack on Iran, The National has been told.
'While they can drop the GBU-57, the fact they have to fly straight and level means that the B-52 would be sitting ducks if used over Iran,' said military aviation expert Tim Ripley. 'But they carry 20 cruise missiles, which they can launch from a distance.'
The total value of the jets currently present is approaching $1.5 billion which contrasts with the $12 billion cost of the six B-2s that were at the base two months ago and appear to have been moved back to the US.
It is understood that they were there to be used against the Houthis in Yemen as part of America's bombing campaign before a ceasefire was agreed.
They are the most expensive aircraft ever built and the only ones certified to drop GBU-57 bombs. Their departure makes it more likely that if US President Donald Trump decides to support Israel by attacking Iran's Fordow nuclear facility hidden in a mountain, the strike will be launched from America.
The B-2s would fly from their Whiteman air force base in Missouri direct to the site near Qom − a distance of 11,200km distance. While that is at the very limit of their range, they will be able to receive air-to-air refuelling from tankers stationed in the Middle East and Europe.
The Diego Garcia deployment is part of a widespread movement of US warplanes into the region as the possibility of a US attack on Iran increases.
A fleet of more than 30 air-to-air refuelling tankers have crossed the Atlantic and are now stationed at airbases across Europe and the Middle East.
They have been joined by squadrons of F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters that will be on hand for a major air attack alongside the jets from what will soon be two US aircraft carriers in the region, once the USS Nimitz arrives from the Pacific.
But as the Diego Garcia base is a British overseas territory, permission would be required from London before any raid on Iran is undertaken.
The UK is likely to face domestic opposition to joining the US in the conflict. Prime Minister Keir Starmer held an emergency Cobra meeting upon his return to the UK from the G7 summit to discuss the UK's response to the crisis.
Attorney General Lord Richard Hermer reportedly raised concerns about the legality of the UK's involvement, advising that the UK should limit this to 'defensive' support.
However, Sir John Sawers, former head of MI6, on Thursday told the Chatham House think tank's London Conference that he did not see obstacles to a UK green light for use of the archipelago for an Iran mission.
'If American bombers do strike they will almost certainly do so from Diego Garcia,' he said. 'We've just negotiated a long-term lease so there could be an American base on Diego Garcia. I don't see Keir Starmer saying, 'oh, but you can't use it. I'm afraid'. I don't see that.
'It's very straightforward. They've got an American base there and whole purpose of Diego Garcia is so the Americans can use it when they need to use it.'
There are some concerns that further escalation with Iran would have the undesired effect of re-enforcing its nuclear ambitions. Former National Security Adviser Lord Peter Ricketts said the UK 'should not' support potential US strikes on Iran.
'The only way we're going to control Iran's nuclear ambitions in the long term is by having a deal with them,' he said.
'I think just coming back and bombing them every few years is not going to make the world safer. In fact, it's going to reinforce their determination to keep working on a nuclear weapon when this round of fighting is over,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Khaleej Times
40 minutes ago
- Khaleej Times
UAE: Why Gen-Z is rejecting performative work culture in the age of AI
I have worked hard to offer as apolitical and well-rounded a viewpoint I can, but it's harder and harder as time goes on to remain so aloof. This is because I have changed and, readjusting my views on journalism and my role in this industry, have a desire to centre problem solvers on the ground rather than the bloody leading story of a given topic. How I'll be doing this here is focusing on what you and I can do in our day-to-day lives wherever we are and whomever we're with. With that in mind, this week I wanted to look at the workplace for the under-40 crowd, primarily those professionals like me with a degree and desire to work in an environment that no longer exists. AI is eating up entry-level jobs, or they are simply going to someone who will do the job cheaper or under more stress, while for many of us the urge to perform or put on a face has lost all meaning. One clash is the junction between work responsibility and the importance of feedback. At one of my jobs, it's not often my direct supervisor and I communicate; trust goes both ways, I'm punctual and they treat me well. When we do check in, it is prompt and I receive feedback unbidden, because relatively early in my work when a line was drawn between management and the workers over a cascading series of mistakes, of which my failure was only the result of a manager's failure, my supervisor— who also hired me — offered a shoulder to cry on and an explanation when management had already forgotten. In recognising my fear and anxiety, a wall between us fell; often-times, older managers and supervisors see those of us younger than them, even millennials now older than 40, as children. They speak to us like children, they expect us to shut up and be seen and not heard like children, and they expect us to deliver unto them respect they didn't earn as if they are our parents and elders. I've encountered this beyond age and when they are much closer, and though I haven't heard my peers and friends with bosses younger than them describe similar problems, but with a similar ease not unlike my situation. Why I mentioned outlook is here; we as people need to ascend the work ladder together, but dispel the notion we have to or are even capable of coordinating. Under 45, or simply a millennial or younger, the problems that Gen-Z experiences are not exclusive to us. Many of the expectations put upon Gen-Z surrounding culture, technology and communication stem from those Millennial, Gen-Y and Gen-X already survived. A perfect example would be communication surrounding workload; I don't know a 'young' person who isn't as honest as they can be about how busy they are and their ability to take on more. I have found that it is older folks or people with responsibilities that will take additional work on out of a belief that they must, while Gen-Z have no interest in putting up a facade of hard work. This plays into the shifting goalposts of performance, and that my stagnating salary cannot do for me what it did for my dad in the same industry twenty, ten or even five years ago. In abandoning the performative, what results is calm assurance and mental stability. We must and should allow a part of ourselves to be stressed, to feel anxiety around work, but we all need to acknowledge the times we live in and that around the world, everyone knows that the performance is nonsense.
Khaleej Times
41 minutes ago
- Khaleej Times
What are the nuclear contamination risks from Israel's attacks on Iran?
E[Editor's Note: Follow the KT live blog for live updates on the Israel-Iran conflict. ] Israel says it is determined to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities in its military campaign, but that it also wants to avoid any nuclear disaster in a region that is home to tens of millions of people and produces much of the world's oil. Fears of catastrophe rippled through the Gulf on Thursday when the Israeli military said it had struck a site in Bushehr on the Gulf coast — home to Iran's only nuclear power station — only to later say the announcement was a mistake. Below are details on the damage caused so far by Israel's attacks, and what experts are saying about the risks of contamination and other disasters. What has Israel hit so far? Israel has announced attacks on nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and Tehran itself. Israel says it aims to stop Iran building an atom bomb. Iran denies ever seeking one. The international nuclear watchdog IAEA has reported damage to the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, to the nuclear complex at Isfahan, including the Uranium Conversion Facility, and to centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and Tehran. Israel said on Wednesday it had targeted Arak, also known as Khondab, the location of a partially built heavy-water research reactor, a type that can easily produce plutonium which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make the core of an atom bomb. The IAEA said it had information that the Khondab heavy water research reactor had been hit, but that it was not operational and reported no radiological effects. What fallout risks do these strikes pose? Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool in England who specialises in radiation protection science and nuclear energy policy, said he is not too concerned about fallout risks from the strikes so far. He noted that the Arak site was not operational while the Natanz facility was underground and no release of radiation was reported. "The issue is controlling what has happened inside that facility, but nuclear facilities are designed for that," he said. "Uranium is only dangerous if it gets physically inhaled or ingested or gets into the body at low enrichments," he said. Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think tank RUSI, said attacks on facilities at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle - the stages where uranium is prepared for use in a reactor - pose primarily chemical, not radiological risks. At enrichment facilities, UF6, or uranium hexafluoride, is the concern. "When UF6 interacts with water vapour in the air, it produces harmful chemicals," she said. The extent to which any material is dispersed would depend on factors including weather conditions, she added. "In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely." The risk of dispersal is lower for underground facilities. What about nuclear reactors? The major concern would be a strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Richard Wakeford, Honorary Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Manchester, said that while contamination from attacks on enrichment facilities would be "mainly a chemical problem" for the surrounding areas, extensive damage to large power reactors "is a different story". Radioactive elements would be released either through a plume of volatile materials or into the sea, he added. James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said an attack on Bushehr "could cause an absolute radiological catastrophe", but that attacks on enrichment facilities were "unlikely to cause significant off-site consequences". Before uranium goes into a nuclear reactor it is barely radioactive, he said. "The chemical form uranium hexafluoride is toxic ... but it actually doesn't tend to travel large distances and it's barely radioactive. So far the radiological consequences of Israel's attacks have been virtually nil," he added, while stating his opposition to Israel's campaign. Why are Gulf states especially worried? For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardising a critical source of desalinated potable water. In the UAE, desalinated water accounts for more than 80% of drinking water, while Bahrain became fully reliant on desalinated water in 2016, with 100% of groundwater reserved for contingency plans, according to authorities. Qatar is 100% dependent on desalinated water. In Saudi Arabia, a much larger nation with a greater reserve of natural groundwater, about 50% of the water supply came from desalinated water as of 2023, according to the General Authority for Statistics. While some Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE have access to more than one sea to draw water from, countries like Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are crowded along the shoreline of the Gulf with no other coastline. "If a natural disaster, oil spill, or even a targeted attack were to disrupt a desalination plant, hundreds of thousands could lose access to freshwater almost instantly," said Nidal Hilal, Professor of Engineering and Director of New York University Abu Dhabi's Water Research Center. "Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination," he said.
Khaleej Times
an hour ago
- Khaleej Times
Trump to decide whether to attack Iran 'within the next two weeks'
[Editor's Note: Follow the KT live blog for live updates on the Israel-Iran conflict. ] US President Donald Trump said Thursday he will decide whether to attack Iran within the next two weeks due to a "substantial" chance of negotiations, as Israel and its regional rival traded fire for a seventh day. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt read out a message from Trump at a briefing, saying there had been "a lot of speculation" about whether the United States would be "directly involved." "Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks," Trump said in the statement. Stay up to date with the latest news. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels. Leavitt would not give details of what had led Trump to believe that negotiations with Iran were possible. Trump had said on Wednesday that Iran had asked to send officials to the White House to negotiate a deal on its nuclear programme and end the conflict with Israel. Iran denied it would do so. Leavitt said that "correspondence has continued" between the United States and Iran when asked about reports that Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff had been in touch with Iran's foreign minister. But she said she was "not tracking" that Witkoff would go to Geneva for talks with Iran. Trump held his third meeting in three days in the White House's highly secured Situation Room on Thursday as he continued to mull whether to join Israel's bombing campaign. The US President had said on Wednesday that "I may do it, I may not do it" when asked if he would take military action against Iran.
