New Satellite Image Shows U.S. Air Force Buildup at Key Indian Ocean Base
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A new satellite image showed a buildup of U.S. Air Force assets at Diego Garcia, a strategic American base in the Indian Ocean. The development comes as tensions are high across the Middle East and Indo-Pacific after U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran.
Newsweek has reached out to the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) for comment.
Why It Matters
Diego Garcia serves as a critical forward base for U.S. military operations stretching from the Middle East to Southeast Asia. Its remote location and extensive airfield make it a key launching point for long-range strike missions and rapid-response deployments.
The deployments at the base suggest a readiness for further military action in the region.
This image captured by the European Space Agency's Sentinel-2 satellites on June 29 shows U.S. military aircraft posture at the Diego Garcia base.
This image captured by the European Space Agency's Sentinel-2 satellites on June 29 shows U.S. military aircraft posture at the Diego Garcia base.
Copernicus/Sentinel Hub
What To Know
The new satellite image revealed a U.S. aircraft presence at Diego Garcia that includes four B-52 strategic bombers, six F-15 fighter jets, and six KC-135 aerial refueling tankers, according to open-intelligence analyst MT Anderson on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Diego Garcia's remote location—about 2,200 miles from Iran and 3,000 from southern China—provides a secure launch point for U.S. aircraft to conduct long-range missions and remain on station.
Imagery captured by Chinese satellite company MizarVision on June 25, 2025, shows U.S. forces at Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, a joint British-American military base in British Indian Ocean Territory roughly 2,650 miles southeast of...
Imagery captured by Chinese satellite company MizarVision on June 25, 2025, shows U.S. forces at Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, a joint British-American military base in British Indian Ocean Territory roughly 2,650 miles southeast of Iran. More
MizarVision
Significant movement of military equipment at the air base had been taking place since March with experts believing it could be a staging point for any attack on Iran.
In May, the U.S. Air Force announced that B-2 Spirit bombers had returned to Missouri after a deployment to Diego Garcia. On June 13, the U.S. launched a surprise overnight strike on three key Iranian nuclear facilities using B-2 stealth bombers that took off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.
The overnight mission relied on deception, aerial refueling, and near-total radio silence to maintain secrecy and tactical surprise. Decoy flights toward the Pacific diverted attention from the actual eastward strike.
Codenamed Operation Midnight Hammer, seven B-2 bombers dropped over a dozen 30,000-pound bunker busters on deeply buried nuclear sites., making it the most ambitious U.S. stealth airstrike in decades. The bombers had also been used in striking Iran-backed Houthi targets in Yemen.
What People Are Saying
Air Marshall Greg Bagwell, former Royal Air Force deputy operations chief told BBC Verify in June: "You would be able to maintain a sustained operation from [Diego Garcia] far more efficiently. You could literally have them round the clock operating."
What Happens Next
Diego Garcia's assets remain well-positioned to respond swiftly should tensions in the Middle East or Indo-Pacific escalate, as a ceasefire between Israel and Iran remains fragile and U.S.-Iran diplomatic negotiations are stalled in post-conflict tensions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's plan for White House ballroom sparks outrage from his critics
President Trump's plans to add a massive $200 million ballroom to the White House is angering critics, who see him moving forward with the long-sought project as part of his desire to leave a lasting mark not only on the office of the presidency but the first house as well. The construction of the ballroom, the cost of which the White House says will be covered by Trump and other donors, will begin in September. Trump is also paving the White House Rose Garden (though the rose bushes will be saved), which the White House says is necessary so people can walk more easily for events held in the space. And he's added his personal gold touch to the Oval Office. Trump says he sees the ballroom as a way to add to his legacy. And while detractors say his decorative and more substantial changes are out of touch and ostentatious, he says they are necessary. 'I always said I was going to do something about the ballroom because they should have one,' he told reporters Thursday. 'So we'll be leaving it, it will be a great legacy project. And, I think it will be special.' When asked if any government funds will be used to construct the 90,000 square foot facility, Trump replied, 'no government dollars, no.' The White House said the sprawling event space will be built adjacent to the White House where the East Wing sits. The goal is to complete construction before the end of Trump's term in January 2029. Trump's vision is for a space where he and future presidents can host state dinners, large gatherings with business leaders and other ritzy parties or functions. 'We've been planning it for a long time,' Trump said. 'They've wanted a ballroom at the White House for more than 150 years. There's never been a president that was good at ballrooms. I'm really good.' Democrats and regular Trump critics offered a sharp pushback on his plans. 'This is what DOGE was all about, folks,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a video posted to social media hours after the White House announcement, referring to the president's Department of Government Efficiency. 'Cutting things from you, and giving it not to some place that needed it, giving it to the big shots who run the show, Donald Trump at the top of the list.' Others suggested Trump and his White House were planting an intentional distraction. 'You gotta hand it to MAGAs, for about a week they really did have everyone convinced they cared about kids and The Epstein Files,' journalist and pundit Seth Abramson wrote on social platform X. 'On to more important things! Did you hear Trump is building a $200M ballroom at the White House? Wowee!' The White House pushed back on those criticisms in a Friday statement to The Hill, saying 'as President Trump has said, for over 150 years, many presidents, administrations, and staff have all wanted a ballroom, and now we have a president who will accomplish building it.' 'President Trump is the best builder and developer in the entire world and the American people can rest well knowing that this project is in his hands,' a West Wing spokesperson said. 'Many future presidents and American citizens will enjoy it for generations to come.' The president, a longtime real estate mogul who is known for a hands-on approach in the design and construction of his resorts, golf courses and skyscraper office buildings, has long lamented the lack of sufficient event space at the White House. 'When it rains it's a disaster, and the tent's 100 yards, that's more than a football field away from the main entrance,' Trump said as part of his remarks to the press about the project. 'And people are shlopping down to the tent; it's not a pretty sight. The women with their lovely evening gowns, their hair all done, and they're a mess by the time they get [there].' There is longstanding precedent for presidents and first ladies putting their spin on the White House and its grounds. President Harry Truman oversaw a massive renovation from 1948 to 1952 that required he and his wife to move into the Blair House at the time and saw the White House completely gutted. Former first lady Jackie Kennedy, however, championed the historic preservation of the home and advocated that extreme renovations require oversight from the Committee for the Preservation of the White House. 'Every president and first family does make a mark on the White House — they already are a part of history and that snapshot in time,' said Anita McBride, former chief of staff to then-first lady Laura Bush. 'Since the cornerstone was laid, there have been additions, there have been changes that, at the time those happened, raised concerns.' The White House Historical Association welcomed Trump's planned ballroom. 'The history of the White House has evolved over 233 years since the cornerstone was laid in 1792. The South Portico, the North Portico, the East Wing, the West Wing, and the Truman Balcony all raised concerns at the time — but today, we can't imagine the White House without these iconic elements,' Stewart D. McLaurin, president of the association, told The Hill. He added, 'Since our founding by First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy in 1961, we have supported and partnered with every president and first lady caring for and adding to the White House and its Collection. We work to preserve the history of this remarkable museum, home, and office for generations to come.' Some agree with the president that a bigger events space at the White House is long overdue. 'I can understand why someone who thinks on a grand scale, as obviously President Trump does, would want this ballroom added,' said Barbara Perry, a presidential historian and co-chair of the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia's Miller Center. 'That being said, the optics for people who disagree with this president, it will probably have an impact on how they view this.' McBride agreed that the tents on the lawn, which have been constructed during more recent administrations, are not ideal. 'That doesn't come without challenges, putting up staging, putting up a covered structure, getting people to the actual location; dealing with inclement weather. And you're not really having your event in the White House,' she said. 'So you can see where that makes sense.' There are lingering questions about what the new ballroom location will mean for the staffers who work in the East Wing, which is where first lady's staff works. The East Wing is also where tours of the White House for the public are conducted. 'Betty Ford always called the East Wing the 'heart' of the White House,' McBride said. 'All the business and policy gets done in the West Wing, that's critically important. But the heart of the White House is the East Wing. And so what, what will be the new East Wing?' Others see the construction of an opulent addition to the president's residence as a matter of bad timing and poor optics given sluggish jobs reports and fears about how global tariffs might hurt the U.S. economy. 'This isn't something that's going to make or break another election, but it does add another page to the catalog of hypocrisy that these people read from when they want to lecture Americans about fiscal responsibility,' said Antjuan Seawright, a Democratic political strategist. 'It's a visible middle finger to working class Americans, many of whom voted for him.'
Scientific American
18 minutes ago
- Scientific American
Strong Support for NASA and Project Artemis Will Advance the U.S.
During President Trump's first term in office, he signed Space Policy Directive 1, signaling the administration's desire to bring American astronauts back to the moon. This directive, and similar ones, later became Project Artemis, the lunar campaign with broader ambition to get the U.S. on Mars. But will we get to the moon, not to mention Mars? As the space race against China barrels forward, the White House first proposed $6 billion in total cuts to NASA funding, a roughly 24 percent reduction that experts said would be the largest single-year cut to agency funding in history. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. But in the aftermath of President Trump signing the ' One Big Beautiful Bill,' which did reintegrate certain funds for Project Artemis, Congressional appropriations committees have continued to push back against the administration's myriad cuts to NASA, which for the space agency's science unit alone was a 47 percent reduction to approximately $3.9 billion. The Senate committee's bill kept NASA science funding, integral to the support of Artemis and its mission, roughly at their current levels, while the House draft halved the cuts proposed by the White House. The Senate appropriations committee also firmly rejected the president's original proposal to terminate Project Artemis's Space Launch System and Orion Spacecraft after the conclusion of the Artemis III mission. This conflict and dizzying back and forth regarding America's moonshot project suggests a question: Are we committed to Artemis and the broader goal of understanding space? Or to put it another way: Do we want to win this new race to the moon? The current administration owes us an answer. There's more than just a soft-power victory over China's taikonauts at stake. This endeavor is about cementing the U.S. as a technological superpower, a center for understanding space and our solar system, and in due course, setting us up to be the first to live and work on the moon. Americans support this goal. A recent CBS News poll shows broad support for sending astronauts back to the moon. But it will be hard for the administration to reconcile its anti-government spending message with a full-throated support of Artemis and related missions. This isn't the first time the U.S. has faced such a debate. In the winter of 1967, Senator Clinton P. Anderson and his space committee initiated an inquiry into the disastrous Apollo 1 fire that killed three American astronauts. Letters flooded into Congress. Concerned citizens across the country offered their theories about the cause of the conflagration. But others asked a more poignant question that was at the center of national debate: Why are we going to the moon in the first place? 'I want to say here and now that I think the moon project is the most terrible waste of national funds that I can imagine,' wrote James P. Smith of Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. in a letter housed at the Legislative Archives in Washington D.C. 'Let [the Russians] go to the moon and let us use our money to end the war in Vietnam and raise our standards of living.' Others pressed their representatives to not give up their support of the Apollo program. Julius H. Cooper, Jr., of Delmar, Md., said in his letter to Anderson's committee: 'Should a manned landing by the Soviets occur on the moon first make no mistake about it the political and scientific repercussions will be tremendous.' Today's America, in many ways, is the same. Social discord, financial struggles, and conflicts abroad continue to consume our country's time, energy and resources. But the value of Project Artemis goes beyond the scientific discoveries and technological advancements that await. The success of this new moonshot will at the very least prevent space dominance from adversaries, including Russia and China, which have partnered together on their own International Lunar Research Station. Both countries have declined to sign onto the Artemis Accords, a worrying sign that these nations don't agree with our approach to the 'peaceful' exploration and use of space. To be clear, this Artemis isn't just a jobs program. Although the work created by these missions will bring a positive economic impact, the reality is that humankind's future is among the stars. Our government should be the one to orchestrate the path there while inspiring the next generation to continue exploring the depths of space. But instead of leaning into the benefits of Project Artemis, the administration is creating hurdles for the moon bound mission. To start, NASA has no permanent leadership. The administration withdrew its nomination of tech billionaire and civilian astronaut Jared Isaacman to lead the space agency, so despite the recent appointment of Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy as interim administrator, NASA will continue for months without a leader pushing Project Artemis forward. And despite Duffy's assurance that Artemis is a critical mission, the message runs hollow if word from the Oval Office doesn't match. Again, the president initially called for the end of the program's Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule following the Artemis III mission for more cost-effective commercial systems. Trump's initial budget also called for the termination of the Gateway station, the planned lunar outpost and critical component of Project Artemis's infrastructure. This would effectively kill the program that President Trump championed with his initial space policy directive. Congress did ultimately provide funding for additional Artemis missions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but it remains to be seen whether that reflects a sustained change in the administration's commitment. The success of Artemis requires extended support, not preemptively phasing out critical mission components or funding for NASA's incredibly valuable science missions. Artemis and NASA's science programs contribute an extraordinary amount toward America's technological might, so funding shouldn't be framed as an 'either/or' proposition. Now is the time to brush away uncertainty and put Artemis on a track forward. As critics have pointed out, it is unclear whether NASA has a tangible plan for getting to the moon and back. The lunar landing system is still in the concept stage. This is a chance for the president to show leadership by stepping in and pushing his government to achieve a monumental task, one that he might compare to the success of Operation Warp Speed during his first term. The administration needs to move fast and nominate a leader for NASA who will prioritize Artemis and its core mission. It needs to walk back plans to slim down government that are causing 2,000 senior officials to leave NASA at a time when leadership matters more than ever before. In short, Project Artemis requires financial certainty. The success of the program will come from the willingness of this administration to fully commit to it. In Air & Space magazine's June/July 1989 issue commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, author Andy Chaikin opined on why America hadn't yet gone back. 'One of the lessons of Apollo is that the decision to 'go someplace' can't come from anyone in NASA, or from moon advocates, or from the Mars advocates,' he wrote. 'It's got to come from the top.' If President Trump supports this moonshot, Americans deserve a clear justification straight from the Oval Office. Americans need to buy into the message from the top, whether it's one of technological or political superiority, a desire to discover the unknown, or something else. Ultimately, Senator Anderson's 1967 space committee recommended that the Apollo program continue, with the caveat that improvements needed to be made. Today, boxes of letters sent into the Apollo 1 investigatory committee sit in the Center for Legislative Archives in Washington, D.C., serving as a time capsule of one of America's most contentious debates. Inside one of these boxes there's a handwritten letter from a woman named Ruth B. Harkness, of Wataga, Ill., inquiring about the U.S.'s determination to get to the moon. It distills down the very question we're struggling with now. 'May I ask, Why?' she wrote. Tell us, Mr. President.
UPI
19 minutes ago
- UPI
India responds to U.S. penalty over Russia oil
Aug. 2 (UPI) -- Indian officials confirmed Saturday the country is not altering policy and will continue buying oil from Russia, despite threats of a financial "penalty" from U.S. President Donald Trump. India's government has not given any directive to the country's oil refiners to stop or reduce the amount of Russian crude oil, the New York Times reported, citing two senior Indian officials. Trump earlier this week said he would impose a financial "penalty" on the South Asian country if it did not cut back on its reliance on Russian oil. The sanction would be in addition to a 25% American tariff on Indian goods. The president did not elaborate on the extent of the additional financial "penalty." "Remember, while India is our friend, we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their Tariffs are far too high, among the highest in the World, and they have the most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary Trade Barriers of any Country, " Trump said in a Truth Social post. "Also, they have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and are Russia's largest buyer of ENERGY, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to STOP THE KILLING IN UKRAINE." Trump on Friday said it was his understanding "that India is no longer going to be buying oil from Russia. That's what I heard. I don't know if that's right or not. That is a good step. We will see what happens." Indian officials told the New York Times the country has "not given any direction to oil companies" to change direction. Publicly, Indian officials said they are considering options without confirming or denying the Times report. "We have taken note of the sanctions, and we are looking into it," Ministry of External Affairs of India spokesman Shri Randhir Jaiswal said during a news conference Friday in New Delhi. "On the other question about proposed oil sale, I would say that I have no comments to offer in this particular matter. As far as sourcing our energy requirements is concerned, you are well aware of our broad approach, meaning our overall approach and stance. We take decisions based on the price at which oil is available in the international market and depending on the global situation at that time. As for the specifics of your particular question, I am not aware of it. I don't have details of these specifics." Jaiswal also attempted to avoid further escalating the situation. "I would also like to underline this particular point that this is a sensitive and complex case and therefore, I would urge all to be mindful that media reports based on speculation and misinformation are not helpful at all," he told reporters. "In so far as the reports claiming that there has been certain developments etc., such reports are incorrect. Please wait for an update from us, this is a sensitive matter, and we urge all sides to stay away from misinformation."
