US Pulls Bombers From UK Base Amid Rising Iran Tensions

Last week, a British bomb-disposal robot was deployed around the perimeter of Royal Air Force (RAF) Fairford and 85 residents were evacuated as the threat of an attack appeared to draw near. Days later, the US swiftly sent the B-1 bombers stationed there — used to strike Iran in the ongoing war — back home. Roughly a dozen aircraft had been deployed at the base.

The thwarted plot led to no charges, and five suspects were released, followed by a suspect holding dual British-Iranian nationality. The US nonetheless cited concerns about further attack risks in deciding to withdraw the squadron. Tehran has denied any connection to the plot targeting the base.

According to analysts, RAF Fairford served as a stopover for US bombers in the war, but more importantly it allowed Washington to quickly launch sustained waves of airstrikes on Iran. The withdrawal reduces the ability to generate and sustain rapid bombing missions, but will not stop the US from continuing to strike Iran.

"The US has lost a convenient launchpad, not its core strike capability," Dania Thafer, executive director of the International Forum for the Gulf and a lecturer at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera.

A prolonged bombing campaign becomes harder

Analysts agree the UK base gave the US a faster, more efficient way to sustain airstrikes against Iran.

According to Christoph Bergs, an analyst at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), the world's oldest defense research organization, the bombers at Fairford were officially stationed to carry out defensive airstrikes at the request of the British government and may have had a modest target list.

"Withdrawing them reduces the ability to quickly ramp up sorties against Iran, thereby somewhat lowering the level of threat," Bergs told Al Jazeera.

Thafer explained that while losing the bombers does not remove US strike or escalation capability, "depending on where other assets are, it could make a prolonged bombing campaign harder."

According to Arun Dawson, a doctoral researcher at the Freeman Air and Space Institute at King's College London and a researcher with the UK Nuclear Deterrence Network, the B-1 withdrawal carries some tactical losses.

Unlike the more modern B-2 stealth bomber, designed to complicate adversary tracking — which was also previously stationed at RAF Fairford — "the B-1's main advantage is its conventional weapons payload, the largest of any US military aircraft," Dawson told Al Jazeera. He said the B-1 carries at least 34 tons of weapons.

"This makes the B-1 particularly effective at delivering large volumes of precision-guided weapons against multiple targets in a sustained air campaign," Dawson said.

"In the war with Iran, those targets could include air defense infrastructure, ballistic missile positions and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) facilities," he added.

He explained that with the B-1 gone, the US may have to rely more on long-range missions from the US or more distant bases, increasing flight times, crew fatigue and aerial refueling needs.

However, according to Dawson, the US may have made the withdrawal decision based on a risk assessment.

"Their sudden departure suggests there may have been specific threats targeting the aircraft, the crews or the base itself," he said.

According to Dawson, Washington may also have calculated that temporarily withdrawing the bombers could protect them for future operations, especially if the US does not believe the war with Iran will escalate soon.

For David Des Roches, a professor at the Thayer Marshall Institute and a former Pentagon official, the B-1 withdrawal shows the risks of keeping the aircraft at the UK base outweighed the benefits.

Last week's security incident "exposed a vulnerability" when the aircraft were "parked in the open" and only about 300 yards (275 meters) from where the public could see them.

"So they are highly vulnerable to drone attacks or mortar-style attacks," he told Al Jazeera.

"Even a small drone, or any drone carrying explosives, could cause significant damage," Des Roches said.

The former Pentagon official acknowledged that withdrawing the US bombers means "you lose a bit of strike capability," but argued that given the threat seen at Fairford, "we should have had overhead cover for all aircraft, globally, years ago."

Where could the bombers go?

The US has two potential options if it wants to redeploy bombers: Diego Garcia, a remote atoll in the central Indian Ocean hosting both US and UK military facilities; or the multiple US bases in the Gulf.

Thafer pointed out that Diego Garcia offers better protection against potential Iranian attacks, but requires longer flight distances.

Bergs noted that moving bombers to Diego Garcia would also depend on how quickly additional aircraft can be added to the base infrastructure there.

According to Dawson, placing them in the Gulf, closer to Iran, would offer advantages in shorter transit times, reduced refueling needs and faster sortie generation.

But analysts agree that basing in the Gulf would require more careful negotiations on risk mitigation, since these countries have borne the brunt of Iranian retaliation throughout the war. They also want to avoid being seen as direct participants in the US campaign against Iran.

According to Thafer, Fairford was therefore a "useful" middle-ground solution between the two options. But with Fairford no longer an option, Dawson said Diego Garcia would be the clearer choice, not only because it is farther from Iran but also because it offers a safer operating environment. He said it has infrastructure designed to support large-scale US air operations.

US capability in the war ahead

For now, the withdrawal appears to weaken but not eliminate US bombing capability against Iran.

However, according to Bergs, the practical impact on US military options will depend largely on whether the administration sees a need for such airstrikes right now, or whether the threat from similar aircraft based at Diego Garcia is sufficient for the moment.

Dawson said the expected arrival in the Middle East in November of the Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group and the Makin Island Marine Expeditionary Unit will significantly bolster US carrier-based air power in the region.

"Aircraft for aircraft, carrier fighters cannot replace the B-1's massive payload, but there are more of them, giving commanders additional options for shorter-range strikes," he said.

According to the researcher, what the incident highlights is the importance — and vulnerability — of US alliances and overseas bases.

He said Washington has long enjoyed access to a global network of military facilities, a key element of its ability to project power quickly and at scale.

But according to Dawson, if these bases face attacks or political restrictions, the consequences will extend beyond the war with Iran.

They will affect "how the US military structures its forces, allocates assets, generates combat power and sustains operations abroad."