U.S. Issues Security Warning for Biggest Middle East Base
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The U.S. has issued a security warning for access to its largest air base in the Middle East at Doha in Qatar amid an intensifying conflict between Israel and Iran.
Newsweek has contacted the Pentagon for comment.
Why It Matters
The warning, along with the redeployment of military assets in the region, signals the U.S. stepping up defense and readiness against possible threats from Iran or proxy regional groups ahead of a potential attack on Iran.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told a Senate committee on Wednesday that the U.S. military stands prepared to execute any decision President Donald Trump makes regarding Iran.
In this handout photo from the U.S. Air Force, an airman guides an F-16 Fighting Falcon during training at Al-Udeid Air Base, Qatar, Jan. 24, 2022.
In this handout photo from the U.S. Air Force, an airman guides an F-16 Fighting Falcon during training at Al-Udeid Air Base, Qatar, Jan. 24, 2022.
U.S. Air Force/Capt. Mahalia Frost/AP
What To Know
"Out of an abundance of caution and in light of ongoing regional hostilities, the U.S. Embassy has advised its personnel to exercise increased vigilance and has temporarily restricted access to Al Udeid Air Base," the American embassy in Qatar said in a security alert on its website.
"We recommend that U.S. citizens in Qatar take similar precautions," the statement added. The U.S. has its largest Middle East air base Al-Udeid, in Qatar which also hosts others U.S. military bases.
Iran has previously threatened to attack U.S. targets in the region if it comes under attack by the U.S. or Israel.
While on a high-profile visit to Qatar last month, Trump visited Al-Udeid base, where he addressed troops saying: "No visit in the Gulf would be complete without stopping to salute the people who keep America safe, strong and free."
In 2024, the base was used by the U.S. for the deployment of the nuclear-capable B-52H Stratofortress bombers.
What People Are Saying
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told a Senate hearing on Wednesday: "We know right now that Iran understands exactly what the president is saying. He said 60 days. The world can believe it, the world cannot believe it, but he said 60 days. they had an opportunity to make a deal, they should have made a deal. President Trump's word means something, the world understands that and at the Defense Department our job is to stand ready and prepared for options and that's precisely what we're doing."
What Happens Next
The big question is whether the United States gets involved directly by attacking Iran, which could then bring attacks on U.S. forces in the region.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Black America Web
20 minutes ago
- Black America Web
Trump Pledges To Target Democratic Cities With ICE Raids, Social Media Calls Out His Diet Fascism
President Donald Trump, as usual, raised eyebrows and provoked outrage when he lied his way through a reporter's question about why he has pledged to target Democratic cities with his oppressive, Gestapo-like crackdown on undocumented migrants via U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during the G7 conference in Canada. 'Why are you ordering ICE to target Democratic inner cities? What's behind that?' the reporter asked, to which the stable genius who is totally not in cognitive decline responded, 'I don't know what you're saying.' 'You did a post last night where you said you want ICE to really target Democrats?' the reporter clarified (despite his straightforward question needing no clarification). That's when Trump began saying things that were certainly words, but served, as usual, to insult his political opponents, bash President Joe Biden, lie about migrants being emptied out of prisons into America, and spread misinformation about Democratic-run cities that he clearly doesn't like. 'Yeah, I want them to focus on the cities, because the cities are where you really have what's called sanctuary cities, and that's where the people are,' Trump said. 'I look at New York. I look at Chicago. I mean, you got a really bad governor in Chicago and a bad mayor, but the governor's probably the worst in the country, Pritzker. But I look at how that city has been overrun by criminals. And, you know, New York and L.A. Look at L.A. Those people weren't from L.A. They weren't from California, most of those people, many of those people, and, yeah, that's the focus. Biden allowed 21 million people to come into our country. Of that, vast numbers of those people were murderers, killers, people from gangs, people from jails. They emptied their jails out into the U.S. Most of those people are in the cities, all blue cities, all Democrat-run cities, and they think they're gonna use them to vote. It's not gonna happen.' In fact, none of that ever did happen. Trump's oft-repeated claim that nations around the globe have emptied their prisons and insane asylums and sent criminals to the U.S. is a factless assertion that Trump, apparently, conjured out of thin air. (Or he got it from whoever told him about the fictional 'white genocide' in South Africa.) As for his claim that the 'vast numbers of those people were murderers' and criminals, the data shows that nearly half of ICE detainees either have no criminal record at all or have only been convicted of minor offenses, including traffic violations. According to Reuters, 'U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention statistics show the number of detainees arrested by ICE with no other criminal charges or convictions rose from about 860 in January to 7,800 this month – a more than 800% increase.' Trump has been bloviating about undocumented migrants causing a rise in crime in the U.S. since the start of his 2024 campaign, completely ignoring the migrant crime data that says the opposite is true, as well as the data that shows violent crime in America has done almost nothing but decline over the last four or five decades. Anyway, the fine folks on X (including some Democratic lawmakers) are calling Trump's targeting of Democratic cities exactly what it appears to be: more of the diet fascist nonsense that the Trump administration passes off as a White House agenda. Some have even insinuated that Trump is just taking revenge on cities that engaged in anti-Trump 'No Kings' protests across the nation over the weekend. (Oh, come on, a sitting president would never be that childish, petty and corrupt, would they?) Check out some of the reactions below. Trump Pledges To Target Democratic Cities With ICE Raids, Social Media Calls Out His Diet Fascism was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump family pulls silent exit from high-stakes venture, cuts 20% stake
Trump family pulls silent exit from high-stakes venture, cuts 20% stake originally appeared on TheStreet. The Trump family has reportedly reduced its stake in its key crypto business venture, World Liberty Financial, Fortune reported on June 19. DT Marks DEFI LLC, one of Trump's companies, has reduced its stake in the crypto venture from 60% to 40% within the last 11 days, the report mentions. Launched in September 2024, World Liberty Financial is a decentralized finance (DeFi) project. As per its official website, President Donald Trump and his sons, Eric, Donald Jr., and Barron, are the co-founders. It claims the president quit the position at the company after assuming office. As per the latest Fortune report, Trump changed the name of DT Tower II LLC, an entity he created in 2016, into DT Marks DEFI LLC. Trump held a 100% stake in DT Tower II LLC. But he reduced his stake to 70% in the new entity, DT Marks DEFI LLC, as his family members — presumably Don Jr., Eric, and Barron — came to assume a 30% stake in it, the report adds. The report also mentions how someone registered three new companies in Delaware in July 2024: DJT Jr DEFI LLC, ET DEFI LLC, and BWT DEFI LLC — all named after the initials of the three sons. While DT Marks DEFI LLC earlier held a 75% stake in World Liberty Financial, it later lowered it to approximately 60%, as previously reported. The crypto venture raised $615 million via the sale of its native WLFI tokens in four rounds, as per ICO Drops. The company has also launched USD1, a stablecoin pegged to the U.S. dollar. As per DeFiLlama, USD1 has a market cap of $2.19 billion and accounts for 0.0086% share of the total stablecoin market cap of $251.73 billion. World Liberty Financial isn't the only crypto venture the Trump family is involved with. Meme coins, crypto exchange-traded funds, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) — there is hardly any crypto business that the First Family hasn't ventured into. Trump's second presidential term has also seen the U.S. administration pursuing an aggressive pro-crypto policy, such as the order to create a strategic Bitcoin reserve and the introduction of bills regarding stablecoin regulation and crypto market structure. Trump's financial relationship to these crypto ventures has raised questions regarding conflicts of interest, with Democrat leaders such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) being the most vocal critics. Trump family pulls silent exit from high-stakes venture, cuts 20% stake first appeared on TheStreet on Jun 19, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jun 19, 2025, where it first appeared. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What UK involvement in Iran could look like – and the political questions it raises
At the time of writing, US President Donald Trump is deliberating over whether to join Israel's air campaign to destroy Iran's suspected nuclear weapons programme. This is already a contentious issue within Washington DC and the Trump administration. But if the president decides to take the US into a war with Iran, it will have significant implications for the US's allies, not least the UK. As the recent strategic defence review emphasises, the US is Britain's main ally, an essential partner in defence and intelligence. However, the Trump administration has made clear to its European allies that it no longer regards the defence of the continent as a US national security priority. And the president's commitment to Nato is uncertain. It is possible that Britain and other European allies could be publicly pressured by Trump to support any intervention on Israel's side. The US may expect this in return for the US's continued involvement in Nato and its readiness to honour article 5 (the collective defence principle, which obliges collective retaliation to aggression against one member) for its allies. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. Given the importance of American military power in deterring wider Russian aggression in Europe – and Trump's transactional character – this would present Keir Starmer with a particularly stark dilemma. A purely US air campaign against Iran is feasible. The US Navy will soon have two carrier strike groups in the Middle East region. And the US Air Force's B2 strategic bombers can launch raids across the globe from bases in the continental US. The US also has several military bases in the region. However, as was the case with the 1991 and 2003 wars with Iraq, Washington DC will need permission from Gulf Arab allies to use them. Nonetheless, the Trump administration could request authorisation from the UK's Labour government to use US airbases in the UK and its overseas territories to support an air campaign against Iran. This would not involve the UK deploying forces, but would require the UK to approve the use of the airbases. The Diego Garcia airbase in the Indian Ocean would be a useful asset in this case. But its employment would reopen the controversy over its establishment in the 1960s. It could also call into question the diplomatic deal the UK made with Mauritius last month to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, while keeping this base open. The Mauritians are likely to oppose US airstrikes on Iran. Britain also has options for direct participation. RAF Typhoon jets stationed at Britain's airbase in Akrotiri, Cyprus provided air defence support for Israel during the Iranian missile and drone strikes in April and October 2024. They could conduct similar missions now. But from the Royal Navy's perspective, it would be difficult to divert the aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales from its deployment to the Indo-Pacific, partly because the task group it sails with is a multinational one. Given that the British armed forces are already overstretched, it is difficult to see whether the UK could provide more than basing rights and air support to the Israelis (if requested). A discreet commitment of UK special forces (the 22nd Special Air Service regiment and the Special Boat Service) on the ground is conceivable. This can be – and indeed has been – authorised by previous governments without parliamentary debate. But any further British military commitment is likely to cause a political row. The key question for Starmer and his ministers will not be whether Britain could back a US war against Iran but whether it should. After the debacle of the Iraq war and the ensuing Chilcot inquiry, it is difficult to see how any government – let alone a Labour one – can take Britain into a major interstate conflict on this scale without firm parliamentary support and a solid case in international law. To this end, the Attorney General Richard Hermer has reportedly questioned the legality of Israel's preemptive attack on Iran, and has argued that any British military intervention should be limited to the defence of its allies. We should not forget that Starmer was a human rights lawyer and the head of the Crown Prosecution Service before he became a politician. Another legacy of Iraq is that it is customary (though not a legal requirement) for prime ministers to seek parliamentary approval for any major military operation. David Cameron lost a vote in the House of Commons to approve airstrikes against Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria in August 2013. But he gained parliamentary support for Britain's commitment to the fight against Islamic State in 2015. A similar debate now is unlikely to lead to approval of British military intervention in this case. Within the Labour party, there is already widespread condemnation of Israeli tactics and Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza. There is little popular appetite for sending British sailors and airmen into a war with Iran. And, given the US vice-president's own dismissive comments about the military experiences of European allies, the public is also entitled to ask why British servicemen should die or risk breaching international law for an administration that probably will not appreciate their sacrifice. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Geraint Hughes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
