US fighter jets move to ME as Israel-Iran war rages
- Trump calls Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei 'easy target,' rules out assassination for now
- US President is convening a meeting of his National Security Council to discuss the ongoing war in Middle East
- EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has warned against US involvement in the conflict between Israel and Iran
- G7 accord backsIsrael's self-defence, opposes nuclear Iran; Israel act violation of UN charter, says tehran
WASHINGTON: The US military is deploying more fighter aircraft to the Middle East and extending the deployment of other warplanes, bolstering US military forces in the region as the war between Israel and Iran rages, three US 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.
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Reuters was first to report on Monday the movement of a large number of tanker aircraft to Europe as well as the deployment of an aircraft carrier to the Middle East, providing options to President Donald Trump as Middle East tensions soar.
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth described the deployments as defensive in nature, as Washington looks to safeguard forces in the Middle East from potential blowback from Iran and Iran-aligned forces in the region.
A fourth US defence official on Tuesday raised the possibility of the deployment to the Eastern Mediterranean of additional US Navy warships capable of shooting down ballistic missiles.
The sudden eastward deployment of over two dozen US Air Force tankers is not business as usual. It's a clear signal of strategic readiness," said Eric Schouten at Dyami Security Intelligence.
"Whether it's about supporting Israel, preparing for long-range operations, logistics is key, this move shows the US is positioning itself for rapid escalation if tensions with Iran spill over."
AirNav systems said the US military flights had landed in Europe, including at Ramstein air base in Germany and airports in the United Kingdom, Estonia and Greece.
Another source familiar with the issue said the United States has told regional countries that it is making defensive preparations and would switch to offensive operations if Iran strikes any US facilities.
The United States already has a sizeable force in the Middle East, with nearly 40,000 troops in the region, including air defence systems, fighter aircraft and warships that can help bring down missiles.
Last month, the Pentagon replaced B-2 bombers with another type of bomber at a base in the Indo-Pacific that is seen as being an ideal location to operate in the Middle East. The B-52 bombers can carry large bunker-busting munitions, which experts say can be used against Iran's nuclear facilities. — Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
3 hours ago
- Observer
Iran's Khamenei rejects Trump's call for unconditional surrender
DUBAI/JERUSALEM: Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a statement read by a television presenter on Wednesday that his country will not accept U.S. President Donald Trump's call for an unconditional surrender. In his first remarks since Friday, when he delivered a speech broadcast on state media after Israel began bombarding Iran, Khamenei said peace or war could not be imposed on the Islamic Republic. "Intelligent people who know Iran, the Iranian nation, and its history will never speak to this nation in threatening language because the Iranian nation will not surrender," he said. "The Americans should know that any U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage." Thousands of people were fleeing Tehran on Wednesday after Israeli warplanes bombed the city overnight, and a source said Trump was considering options that include joining Israel in attacking Iranian nuclear sites. Israel's military said 50 Israeli jets had struck around 20 targets in Tehran overnight, including sites producing raw materials, components and manufacturing systems for missiles. A source familiar with internal discussions said Trump and his team were considering a number of options, which included joining Israel in strikes against Iranian nuclear sites. Iran had conveyed to Washington that it would retaliate against the United States for any direct participation, its ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Ali Bahreini, said. He said he already saw the U.S. as "complicit in what Israel is doing".
Observer
3 hours ago
- Observer
Iran has ‘legitimate' right to self-defence, says Erdogan
ISTANBUL: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Wednesday Iran had the "legitimate" right to defend itself in the face of Israel's ongoing bombing campaign, now in its sixth day. "It is a very natural, legitimate and legal right for Iran to defend itself against Israel's thuggery and state terrorism," the Turkish leader said, a day after referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as "the biggest threat to the security of the region". The long-range blitz began early on Friday, when Israel launched a massive bombing campaign that prompted Iran to hit back with missiles and drones, including hypersonic missiles. "These attacks were organised while the Iranian nuclear negotiations were taking place," Erdogan said. "Israel, which possesses nuclear weapons and does not recognise any international rules... did not wait for the negotiations to end, but carried out a terrorist act without waiting for the result," he added. Iran says at least 224 people have been killed in the Israeli attacks, which have targeted nuclear and military facilities, while Iranian fire on Israel has claimed at least 24 lives and wounded hundreds more, Netanyahu's office said. "We are closely following Israel's terrorist attacks on Iran. All our institutions are on high alert regarding the possible effects of these attacks on Türkiye," Erdogan said. "We are making preparations for every kind of scenario," he said. "Nobody should dare to test us." On Monday, Erdogan said he had ordered the defence industry to increase production of medium and long-range missiles to "increase its level of deterrence" in light of the air war between Israel and Iran. — AFP
Observer
3 hours ago
- Observer
4 thoughts on Trump's hawkish turn on Iran
The only way to know for certain where Donald Trump's Iran policy is going is to wait — for the president to throw in fully with the Israelis, for a new attempt at diplomacy with a battered Iranian regime, for a continuation of the United States' current position as spectator, cheerleader and secondary participant. But while we wait, here are four quick comments on the debate about the war: 1) There is nothing inherently surprising about Trump's permitting and indirectly supporting Israel's war against Iran. Trump generally took a hawkish line on Iran throughout his first term; he has never been a principled non-interventionist; his deal-making style has always involved the threat of force as a crucial bargaining chip; and the idea that you can accomplish a lot with a few sharp blows while avoiding regime change and nation building fits comfortably into his worldview. What is more surprising is that Trump would let war come after he had seemingly separated himself from his first term's hawkish personnel — sometimes with prejudice, as with the petty withdrawal in January of security protection from his former secretary of state Mike Pompeo. This separation helps explain the wounded shock with which some non-interventionists on the right have reacted to the war. They imagined that personnel was policy, that the realists and would-be restrainers in Trump's orbit would have a decisive influence. That was clearly a mistake, and the lesson here is that Trump decides and no one else. And it could well be the hawks' turn to be disappointed tomorrow, if he decides to accept concessions from Iran that they regard as fake or insufficient. 2) I have a lot of doubts about the decision to let the Israelis go for it. But non-interventionists should recognise that the strongest Tucker Carlson-style argument for restraining Israel from war, the warning that Iran could plunge the Middle East into turmoil and strike at Americans across the region and the world, inevitably looked much weaker once the Israelis were able to absolutely wreck Iranian proxies. Those successes were also of immediate strategic benefit to America that's facing serious challenges from multiple rivals at once, reducing Iran's ability to add its own pressure to Russian aggression and Chinese ambition. So if you imagine the basic Benjamin Netanyahu pitch to the White House — in effect, let us have a go at the Iranians, and you can decide whether to explicitly support us once you see the outcome — it's easy to see how Trump might decide that an 'America First,' national interest-based foreign policy is compatible with letting the Israelis try to settle all accounts. US President Donald Trump, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. — Reuters 3) With that said, I'm unconvinced by the arguments from some writers on the nationalist right, such as Oren Cass and Daniel McCarthy, who have tried to square Trump's acceptance of the Israeli war with their own desire for American disentanglement from global obligations. Of course one can square the two in theory — acceptance is not participation, and Israel's war need not be ours — but in practice wars are almost always engines of entanglement for great powers, whatever their initial intentions may be. So you can tell yourself a story in which America just watches Israel's war play out and stays aloof even if Iran collapses in the manner of circa-2005 Iraq or post-Moammar Gadhafi Libya, because 'America First' means that we don't worry about regional stability anymore. But stories have to interface with reality, and I don't see anything in the current nature of America's relationship with the Gulf states or the Israelis to suggest that we wouldn't be caught up in a postwar mess. 'America First' isn't a magic wand that does away with path dependency or makes the retreat from empire smooth. If Iran implodes, there will be crises we have to help manage, and a price we have to pay. 4) Last, it is by no means the most urgent question as the bombs and rockets fall, but one of my fears is that the price of a war against Iran that goes sideways will be paid inside American conservatism. I've suggested before that anyone who fears the toxic elements at work on the contemporary right — the pull of paranoia, the openness to antisemitism, the impulse to take the 'blackpill' of despair — should especially fear what might take root among disaffected right-wingers if Trumpism is seen to end in failure. And a reckless war in the Middle East, an echo of the Iraq disaster that implicates the right's long-standing loyalty to Israel, would be one of the most blackpilling ways for Trumpism to fail. All active presidencies assume some risk of this sort. You can't let the fear of disillusionment stop you from making what seems like the correct strategic choice, and I am more hopeful about the potential success of a war against Iran than I would have been a year or two ago. But that is not the same as being optimistic. — The New York Times
