The United States withdraws its strategic bombers from the British Fairford base after intelligence warnings about a potential Iranian threat

In a move remarkable for its speed, the United States withdrew all of its Lancer B1 strategic bombers from the Royal Air Force Base Fairford in southwestern Britain, and redeployed them to its bases inside the United States, after receiving new intelligence warnings about the possibility of targeting the base in a plan suspected of being linked to Iran.

The move indicates the widening circle of risks associated with the US-Iranian confrontation, which was mainly concentrated in the Middle East, with its potential repercussions reaching US military facilities inside Europe.

The European-American Command confirmed that all the bombers that were deployed at the Fairford base were redeployed to their bases inside the United States, noting that American bombers operate periodically around the world to support readiness and operational requirements, without revealing the reasons for the sudden move.

12 Lancer B1 bombers were stationed at the British base, which during the war with Iran turned into an important platform for American air operations.

The US War Department stressed that the bomber force is still capable of carrying out precise strikes around the world from US territory, in a message aimed at preventing the withdrawal of bombers from being interpreted as a decline in US military capability.

An intelligence warning precipitated the evacuation

But the timing and speed of the withdrawal raised widespread questions. The 12 bombers left Britain within one day, while British security services were investigating a series of mysterious events around the base, and at a time when Western intelligence services continue to assess the extent of the potential Iranian threat against American facilities in Europe.

The New York Times quoted American officials as saying that the bombers were withdrawn after commanders received new information about a plan targeting Al-Qaeda, and that the degree of urgency rose sharply during the 24 hours preceding the decision.

According to the newspaper, the need to extract the bombers was so urgent that some of the planes and their crews took off at a time when air refueling planes were still preparing to support the return flights across the Atlantic. At least three bombers had reached their base in South Dakota by Sunday.

The Washington Post also reported that the US military removed its bombers from the British base, which was used to carry out long-range operations during the war against Iran, after Britain allowed the United States to use them to strike Iranian missile sites that were targeting ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

American bases in Germany

The New York Times explained that American military commanders received a warning from American and Western intelligence services about the possibility of targeting the Fairford base in an attack linked to Iran.

The newspaper said that the features of the plan were compiled through a combination of intercepted communications, information provided by informants, and other intelligence sources.

The warnings also extended to Germany, where Israel informed the German authorities, according to an American official, of the presence of high risks to American facilities, especially the Ramstein and Spangdahlem bases, with fears about the possible use of drones.

Analysts believe that if Iran's involvement is proven, this will mean a shift in the response strategy from targeting American forces and interests in the Middle East to trying to create a direct threat to American military installations within the territories of NATO countries. Thus, the issue will no longer be limited to protecting one British base, but rather will prompt a re-evaluation of the security of the network of American facilities in Europe.

A legitimate goal

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard warned in July against allowing British bases to be used in American operations against Iran, saying that any base used to launch attacks on Iranian territory could be considered a legitimate target.

The warning came after the United States used the Fairford base in operations related to the war against Iran. The British government responded at the time that its armed forces were ready to protect the country from any attacks.

Thus, “Fairford” was not a target that suddenly appeared in Iranian calculations; The base is the preferred European location for the deployment of American heavy bombers, and provides Washington with an advanced point for carrying out long-range operations from Europe, without the need to keep the bombers permanently in the Middle East theater.

Suspicious vehicles and 85 homes evacuated

The public dismissal of the case began on September 27, when the British police received a report about three suspicious vehicles moving towards the Fairford base. Armed forces deployed and arrested five men in their twenties, while the authorities imposed a security cordon with a diameter of 400 meters, evacuated the residents of about 85 homes, and used explosive disposal experts to examine the vehicles. But the investigation took a more ambiguous turn when anti-terrorism police announced that they had found no explosive devices inside the vehicles. The five men were released on bail, while investigation continues.

Days later, police in London arrested a man with dual British and Iranian citizenship on suspicion of preparing terrorist acts, before releasing him also on bail.

The British police said that they are pursuing several paths, including the possibility of the involvement of a foreign country, without specifying the identity of the country suspected of involvement.

This showed caution on the part of the British authorities in directly linking the incident to Tehran. The police have not yet announced the discovery of explosives, have not brought final criminal charges against the detainees, and have not presented public evidence proving that the Revolutionary Guard issued orders to carry out an attack. But British Prime Minister Andy Burnham said that there were strong indications that Iran played a role in what happened, while Tehran denied the accusations, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi described these accusations as baseless.

Washington talks about a “foreign party”

For his part, US President Donald Trump said that the men who were arrested near the British base were seeking to cause “major destruction.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio also indicated that there was a “foreign hand” behind the incident, without announcing detailed evidence linking the plan directly to the Iranian government.

The difference in language seems striking. While the White House spoke about the seriousness of the threat and the possibility of the presence of a foreign party, the Pentagon and the European leadership maintained a more conservative operational formulation, emphasizing only the return of the bombers to the United States, and Washington retaining its ability to direct global strikes.

A war that goes beyond the Middle East

The withdrawal of bombers from the British base indicates a broader dilemma facing the United States in the confrontation with Tehran. The United States has a significant superiority in conventional air power, but Iran can try to compensate for this imbalance by using less expensive means, such as drones, sabotage operations, and cyber attacks, or through networks and agents operating outside its borders.

This style of asymmetric warfare allows Tehran to exert pressure outside traditional battlefields, while remaining a great deal of ambiguity about the extent of its direct involvement in each operation or network associated with it.

Discussions within American political and military circles are expanding beyond withdrawing bombers from Fairford, with warnings extending to the Ramstein and Spangdahlem bases in Germany, and plans being put forward to strengthen defenses against drones, tighten surveillance around facilities, and confront potential local networks.

American officials stress that withdrawing the bombers does not prove that an Iranian attack was imminent, but on the other hand, it reveals that the threat level has become serious enough to change the American military deployment.

This raises a broader question about whether Tehran is seeking to impose a new deterrence equation that makes every Western base used to strike Iran a potential target, thus transferring some of the repercussions of the war from the Middle East to the heart of Europe.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed, on Monday, the United States' understanding of the steps taken by the Arab coalition led by Saudi Arabia against the Houthi group in Yemen, stressing that the administration of President Donald Trump intends to fulfill its bilateral security obligations with the Kingdom in the face of the attacks it is being exposed to from the pro-Iranian group.

Before the start of a European tour that includes Iceland, Greece and Portugal, Rubio was asked by journalists in Washington, DC, about the attack launched by the legitimate Yemeni government, with the support of the Arab coalition led by Saudi Arabia, against the Houthi group, and whether the United States would provide air support for these efforts. He replied: “First and foremost, with regard to the issue of aid, the United States has a defense and security agreement with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and we are determined to abide by it,” refusing to discuss more details. From that about military operations.

He noted that “the Saudi and Yemeni forces do not support the Houthis’ control of that area near the strait” in Bab al-Mandab, recalling that “this is an area that was seized as a result of a Houthi attack, and this is a reaction to it.” “We expected this to happen, and this is what is happening.” He added: “It is clear that the Saudis were subjected to a Houthi attack, and they are aware of the danger it represents, and they have the right to defend themselves. It is also clear that the Yemeni forces will try to reclaim the lands previously controlled by the Houthis.

Rubio, who also holds the position of National Security Advisor in the White House, referred to the ongoing Houthi attacks on the holy places in Mecca, Medina and other civilian sites in the Kingdom and the threat this poses, pointing out that the Saudi and Yemeni forces oppose the Houthis’ control of the area surrounding the sea corridor.

Rubio's statements come after the head of the Yemeni Presidential Leadership Council, Rashad Al-Alimi, announced yesterday the start of a military operation to reclaim the capital, Sana'a, with the support of "brothers and friends," in addition to restoring state institutions from the Houthis, who have controlled the city since 2014.

Subsequently, Yemeni army units reported that they had secured the Dhubab neighborhood and strategic locations along the strait.

National Security Council

Senior officials in President Trump's administration met for hours, headed by Vice President Jay DeVance, at Camp David last Friday to discuss the next steps in the war with Iran as well as the response to the Houthi group in Yemen, according to what Axios reported, citing three American officials.

When asked Monday about the issue, Rubio said: “We meet constantly to discuss long-term strategic planning and the like. "It's not uncommon for us as a team to come together." He added, “This is part of the role of the National Security Council; Bring together various stakeholders to develop long-term plans. Six months, nine months, and in many cases five or ten years.”

Other participants include Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, White House envoy Steve Witkoff, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Kaine, and Treasury Secretary Scott Besent.

The Trump administration classifies the Houthi group as an Iranian-backed terrorist organization. It is working with regional partners to “eliminate the capabilities and operations of the Houthi group” and cut off its resources, in particular to stop attacks on regional partners and commercial ships in the Red Sea.

The United States considers Houthi attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea a threat not only to regional security, but also to international trade. The White House explicitly linked the Houthi attacks to disruptions in global maritime trade.

Washington also believes that Iranian support for the Houthis is a major part of the problem, similar to what was announced by the US Deputy Representative to the United Nations, Tammy Bruce, when she accused Iran of providing the Houthis with military and missile expertise, marches, and other things, stressing Washington’s support for the internationally recognized Yemeni government “in the face of the terrorist threat posed by the Iran-backed Houthis.”

The arrival of humanitarian aid is another source of concern for the United States, which has denounced on more than one occasion the Houthis’ detention of United Nations employees and humanitarian workers, calling for their immediate and unconditional release.