SETA Foundation defense researcher Rıfat Öncel wrote about the background of the USA's withdrawal of bombers from RAF Fairford for AA Analysis.
Suspicions of terrorism against the UK's strategically important RAF Fairford base, which emerged in recent weeks, caused the USA to withdraw all bombers from the base to the mainland. The base in question, located in a rural area about two hours away from London in England, constitutes one of the most important locations where the USA has implemented power projection since the Cold War. This base was used in the 1991 Gulf War, the 2003 Iraq invasion, and finally in the air strikes against Iran since the beginning of March this year. Large platforms such as B-1 and B-52, which took off from RAF Fairford, a heavy bomber base, and carried bunker-piercing ammunition, bombed critical Iranian facilities. The United Kingdom defined the use of bases as defensive operations in the face of concerns and criticisms about becoming a party to the war.
Why did the USA withdraw the planes?
The arrival of three white pickup trucks at RAF Fairford air base after midnight on 27 September and the subsequent detention of five people in the vehicles on suspicion of explosives offenses and terrorism marked the beginning of an ongoing investigation. While the people caught that day and afterwards were released on condition of control by the police, gasoline was found in the pickup trucks instead of explosives. While the USA blamed Iran, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham claimed that there were strong indications that Iran was behind the incident. In July, the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that London would also bear responsibility for the US's use of bases in attacks, and on the same day, the Revolutionary Guard announced that all bases used in attacks against Iran would be considered legitimate targets. While these statements were reminded, Iran rejected all allegations and drew attention to the people who were released.
However, it seems that the USA and the UK think differently about the degree of threat. Although UK officials claimed that the base was completely safe, the fact that the planes were ordered to take off without even meeting the need for refueling indicates the belief in a much more urgent threat on the US side. American officials stating that they have been receiving intelligence warnings for weeks and emphasizing that the situation has reached a critical stage with the latest developments can be interpreted in two different ways: These statements may indicate that they have special intelligence information that is not shared with the public, or they may indicate that they are following a cautious policy to minimize possible risks.
It seems that concerns about a possibility similar to the Spider Web operation carried out by Ukraine deep in Russia last year may have played a role in the US's reservations. In the operation in question, Ukraine caused serious damage to many Russian strategic bombers by sending explosive-laden drones hidden in civilian vehicles to bases deep within Russia for hundreds of kilometers without being caught. Even if this situation did not change the course of the war, it was a significant tactical success for Ukraine, while it caused a great loss of cost and prestige to Russia. While there is very little time left until the midterm elections in the USA, a similar scenario at RAF Fairford would be an unthinkable disaster for US President Donald Trump, who is already under criticism for the legitimacy and effectiveness of the war with Iran. This type of attack is extremely difficult to carry out by any actor without overcoming intelligence and logistical obstacles. Such an extreme event would also create great costs for the US military, as the platforms in question are few in number and very expensive.
Tactical evasion or strategic withdrawal?
Despite the perceived threat, "Is the withdrawal from RAF Fairford part of an effort to reduce the US presence in Europe under the Trump presidency?" It brings up the question. However, it is difficult to say that this incident is part of a general and permanent withdrawal, since the aircraft at the base in question are on rotation duty and permanent deployment is out of the question. For example, it was stated that a B-1 that arrived at the base a week ago was among the aircraft withdrawn. In order to talk about a general withdrawal, it is necessary to look at the situation in other strategic bases of the USA.
For example, RAF Lakenheath air base, which, like Fairford, is also located in England, hosts the largest American combat air force structure stationed in Europe. This base constantly maintains two F-35s and two F-15s. Moreover, the wreckage of the F-15 plane, which was shot down by Iranian air defense elements in April 2026, was found as a result of a major search and rescue operation in the mountainous region. Departed from RAF Lakenheath. Similarly, RAF Mildenhall air base, also located in England, played a critical role in the refueling of US aircraft. Currently, it appears that the USA has increased the alert level rather than withdrawing aircraft from these bases.
Therefore, it is seen that rather than a general mobilization, risk aversion behavior guided the decision taken, considering that there was intelligence specific to Fairford or that it was more difficult for the bombers to protect the base. In this sense, it can be considered that the decision taken was a tactical and temporary avoidance rather than a strategic withdrawal. Similarly, the meaning of ending all American air power in the UK under the threat of the Revolutionary Guard would be different, as hastily withdrawing the planes could be considered a psychological warfare defeat. Such a road map would also mean that the Aviano in Italy and Portugal's Lajes Field air bases, as well as the Diego Garcia and Souda Bay naval bases in Crete, used in Iran operations, would also be brought into discussion.
Is the US's base policy changing?
The debates about the US presence in Europe, which intensified during the Trump presidency, reached a higher level with the Iran War. Although there was Trump's dissatisfaction with the base support of European allies and his moves to reduce the US military presence in some countries, quite opposite developments also took place. For example, Spain, which strongly opposes Iranian attacks, agreed with the United States in recent months to expand the B-52 heavy bomber deployment capacity of Moron air base, a critical base with similar capacity to RAF Fairford. On the other hand, Greece and the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus, who want to strengthen the US presence on their lands for different purposes, signed new arms purchase and base expansion agreements in recent months. In addition, despite all the discussions, the agreement on the establishment of a large US base in Poland and Lithuania's submission of a similar offer to the US were notable developments. Considering the damage suffered by the bases in the Middle East, it is obvious that the bases in the region will be subject to a comprehensive evaluation, but the US withdrawal from Europe has much more complex dynamics.
As a result, while the RAF Fairford incident indicates that the USA may have qualified intelligence, it can also be evaluated as a policy of minimizing the risk of an "accident" before the midterm elections. The departure of the new US aircraft carrier task group and amphibious task group to the Persian Gulf in recent weeks strengthens the possibility that the situation with Iran will continue and that the withdrawal in Fairford will be a tactical change.
