bases

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has allowed the US to use British bases for so-called “defensive strikes” targeting Iran, after Tehran started hitting civilian targets. Still, Al Jazeera’s Milena Veselinovic explains why US President Trump says the US-UK relationship isn’t what it used to be.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has condemned US and Israeli strikes on Iran.

Spain says the United States is not using – and will not be using – joint military bases on its territory for operations against Iran, a mission condemned by Madrid.

“Based on all the information I have, the bases are not being used for this military operation,” Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares told Spanish public television on Monday.

Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has condemned US and Israeli strikes on Iran that began on Saturday as an “unjustified” and “dangerous military intervention” outside the realm of international law, in another break from US policy.

“The Spanish government will not authorise the use of the bases for anything beyond the agreement or inconsistent with the United Nations,” Albares said, referring to the Rota naval base and the Moron airbase.

The US operates at the bases under a joint-use arrangement, but they remain under Spanish sovereignty.

Defence Minister Margarita Robles said the bases “will not provide support, except if, in a given case, it were necessary from a humanitarian perspective”.

Spain also condemned the retaliatory attacks by Iran on Gulf countries.

According to maps by flight-tracking website FlightRadar24 on Monday, 15 US aircraft have left bases in southern Spain since the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran. At ‌least seven of the aircraft were shown on FlightRadar24 as having landed at Ramstein airbase in Germany.

The Spanish position is an outlier among the major European countries.

Britain had also initially refused to allow the use of its bases for an attack on Iran, but on Sunday, Prime Minister Keir Starmer authorised their use for “collective self-defence”, amid Iranian counterattacks targeting US assets across the Middle East and energy infrastructure in the Gulf region.

France and Germany, meanwhile, are prepared to do the same.

The three countries’ leaders were “appalled by the indiscriminate and disproportionate missile attacks launched by Iran against countries in the region, including those who were not involved in initial US and Israeli military operations”, read a joint statement on Sunday.

“We have agreed to work together with the US and allies in the region on this matter,” they stated.

Early on Monday, a suspected Iranian drone crashed into the runway at the United Kingdom’s RAF Akrotiri base in southern Cyprus. British and Cypriot officials said the damage was limited. There were no casualties.

Hours later, two drones headed for the base were “dealt with in a timely manner”, according to the Cypriot government.

The incidents came as Prime Minister Keir Starmer signalled on Sunday that the UK was prepared to support the United States in its confrontation with Iran – raising the prospect that it could be drawn deeper into a war it did not choose by its closest ally.

In a joint statement with the leaders of France and Germany, Starmer said the European group was ready to take “proportionate defensive action” to destroy threats “at their source”.

Later, in a televised address, he confirmed that Westminster approved a US request to use British bases for the “defensive purpose” of destroying Iranian missiles “at source in their storage depots, or the launches which are used to fire the missiles”.

But his agreement did little to placate US President Donald Trump, who said the decision came too late.

UK-based military analyst Sean Bell cautioned against reading too much into the Akrotiri incident.

“I understand the projectile that hit Cyprus was not armed, it hit a hangar [with] no casualties, and appears to have been fired from Lebanon,” he said, citing sources.

Al Jazeera was not able to independently verify the claim.

The broader context, he argued, is more consequential.

The US has taken the action “and everybody else is having to deal with the fallout”, he said.

Iran’s military strength lies in its extensive ballistic missile programme, he said, adding that while some have the range to threaten the UK, they do not extend far enough to strike the US.

“I don’t think [US] President Trump has yet made the legal case for attacking Iran, and … international law makes no discrimination between a nation carrying out the act of war and a nation supporting that act of war, so you’re both equally complicit,” he said.

Bell said that Washington likely reframed the issue, communicating to London that, whatever triggered the escalation, US forces were now effectively defending British personnel in the region.

That shift, he suggested, provided a legal basis to “not to attack Iran, but to protect our people”, allowing the UK to approve US operations from its bases under a “very, very clear set of instructions” tied strictly to national interest and defence.

UK officials ‘tying themselves in knots’

However, concerns of complicity had reportedly shaped earlier decisions, according to Tim Ripley, editor of the Defence Eye news service, who said the British government initially concluded that US and Israeli strikes on Iran did not meet the legal definition of self-defence under the United Nations Charter.

When Washington requested the use of bases such as RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, UK, and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, Starmer is understood to have consulted government lawyers, who advised against participation.

Up until Starmer’s televised address, in which he approved the US request, the UK had not considered the campaign a war of self-defence, said Ripley. While Washington’s legal reasoning has not changed, the war’s trajectory has.

Iranian retaliatory strikes – which have seen drones and missiles targeting Gulf states – have placed British expatriates and treaty partners under direct threat.

“The basis of our decision is the collective self-defence of longstanding friends and allies, and protecting British lives. This is in line with international law,” Starmer said.

According to Ripley, several Gulf governments, which maintain defence relationships with the UK, sought protection, allowing London to focus on protecting British personnel and partners rather than endorsing a broader campaign. However, with memories of the Iraq War hanging over Westminster, British ministers have stopped short of explicitly backing the US bombing campaign.

British officials are “tying themselves in knots” trying to describe a position that is neither fully participatory nor detached, he said.

US-UK: A strained relationship

Starmer on Monday told Parliament that the UK does not believe in “regime change from the skies” but supports the idea of defensive action.

But Ripley warned that any arrangement allowing US warplanes to operate from British air bases carries significant risks.

Iran’s missile systems are mobile and launchers mounted on trucks, he said. From RAF Fairford or Diego Garcia, US aircraft face flight times of seven to nine hours to reach Iranian airspace, necessitating patrol-based missions.

Once airborne, pilots may have only minutes to act. The idea that a US crew would pause mid-mission to seek fresh British legal approval is unrealistic, he said.

London must rely on Washington’s assurance that only agreed categories of “defensive” targets will be struck. If an opportunity arose to eliminate a senior Iranian commander in the same operational zone, the temptation could be strong. Yet such a strike might fall outside Britain’s stated defensive mandate. The aircraft would have departed from British soil, and any escalation could implicate the UK, Ripley said.

Bell highlighted another weakness: Britain has no domestic ballistic missile defence system.

If a ballistic missile were fired at London, he said, “We would not be able to shoot it down.”

Intercepting such weapons after launch is notoriously difficult, reinforcing the argument that the only reliable defence is to strike before launch.

The UK, therefore, occupies a grey zone: legally cautious, operationally exposed and strategically dependent on US decisions, it does not fully control.

Beyond the legal and military dilemmas, Starmer must also contend with a sceptical public.

A YouGov poll conducted on February 20 found that 58 percent of Britons oppose allowing the US to launch air strikes on Iran from UK bases, including 38 percent who strongly oppose.

Just 21 percent support such a move, underscoring limited domestic backing for deeper involvement.

March 2 (UPI) — A British airbase on Cyprus was struck by a drone, forcing the evacuation of the facility from where RAF Typhoon warplanes are flying sorties to defend Gulf countries under attack from Iran and as many as 300,000 British nationals visiting or living in the region.

Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper told Sky News that the runway at RAF Akrotiri was hit in the strike late Sunday and that “all of the precautionary measures are being taken around the base,” which is near Limassol in the southwest of the island.

No casualties were reported and the Ministry of Defense said damage had been “minimal” and that the base remained operational, but that families of service personnel and all non-essential staff had been relocated to safe locations off-base.

“Our armed forces are responding to a suspected drone strike at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus at midnight local time. Our force protection in the region is at the highest level, and the base has responded to defend our people. This is a live situation and further information will be provided in due course,” the MOD said.

The military was mounting an effort to reassure residents of villages near the base that the threat was to the base and that there was no risk to them or their property.

The attack came around one hour after British Prime Minister Keir Starmer issued a pre-recorded statement posted to social media saying he had given permission to the U.S. military to fly “defensive” missions out of Britain’s base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and RAF Fairford in England.

Earlier Sunday evening, the MOD said an RAF Typhoon fighter jet patrolling the Persian Gulf successfully deployed an air-to-air missile to down an Iranian drone headed toward Qatar. The aircraft was operating out of Qatar after the RAF’s 12 Squadron deployed to the emirate in January as part of a U.K.-Qatar defense pact.

On Saturday, Starmer said Britain was not and would not participate in the military offensive launched by Israel and the United States, having earlier declined to allow U.S. military aircraft involved in the operation to use British bases either.

In his message, Starmer insisted that it remained the case that the United Kingdom was not involved but that developments over the weekend had changed the situation with attacks on interests of Britain and its partners in the Gulf, who were explicitly asking for back up.

“Over the last two days Iran has launched sustained attacks across the region at countries who did not attack them. They’ve hit airports and hotels where British citizens are staying. This is clearly a dangerous situation. We have at least 200,000 British citizens in the region — residents, families on holiday, and those in transit.

“Our Armed Forces who are located across the region are also being put at risk by Iran’s actions. On Saturday, Iran hit a military base in Bahrain, narrowly missing British personnel,” said Starmer.

He said Britain had made it clear it was staying out of the strikes on Iran because it believed the best way forward for the region and for the world was a negotiated settlement but that Iran had still attacked British interests and put Britons in the region at “huge risk along with our allies.”

Gulf countries had asked Britain to do more to defend them and it was his duty to protect British lives, Stamer said.

He explained that he had decided to grant a U.S. request to use British bases for the “specific and limited defensive purpose” of destroying Iranian missiles in their storage depots and the launchers they are fired from on the basis of “collective self-defence of longstanding friends and allies, and protecting British lives.”

With airspace closed across the region, hundreds of thousands of British nationals in Israel, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are unable to get out.

Foreign Office sources told the BBC no evacuation was imminent but the government was preparing for potential scenarios if commercial flights remained grounded.

Cooper said she still hoped to be able to work with commercial airlines to bring people home in previous similar situations.

The Liberal Democrats and Green Party vowed they would force Starmer’s Labour government to seek authorization from parliament for the decisions he was making.

“No matter how the Prime Minister tries to redefine offensive as defensive, this is a slippery slope. He must not let Trump drag Britain into another prolonged war in the Middle East. Starmer must come to Parliament on Monday, set out the legal case in full, and give MPs a vote,” the Liberal Democrats’ leader, Ed Davey, said in a post on X.

The U.K. is blocking U.S. use of two key bases for an attack on Iran, according to a report by The Times. Both Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean, and RAF Fairford, a base in the U.K., would be important to any American plans to use long-range bombers in a sustained campaign against Iran.

The move reportedly stems from British legal concerns about an Iran attack as well as a dispute between U.S. President Donald Trump and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer over the ultimate disposition of Diego Garcia. We will discuss that more later in this story.

We have yet to see any bombers moving to Diego Garcia and, to a lesser degree, Fairford, which would be likely to happen in advance of a sustained aerial bombardment campaign. The decision by the U.K., if the report is accurate, could be a primary reason why these movements haven’t occurred.

As we have frequently reported, Diego Garcia has long been a highly strategic operating location for the U.S. military. Beyond its large airfield that sits in the center of the Indian Ocean, it plays many roles for the Department of Defense, including hosting Space Force operations, serving as a key port for U.S. Navy vessels, including nuclear submarines, and its lagoon provides shelter for a Sealift Command Prepositioning Ship Squadron. 

The island outpost drew particular attention last year after an unusually large force of six B-2 Spirit stealth bombers began arriving in March in a clear show of force aimed primarily at Iran. This is precisely the type of deployment we would have expected to have occurred during the present crisis, but it has not. The B-2s subsequently conducted strikes on Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen and were ultimately replaced by B-52 bombers.

RAF Fairford is the home of the only U.S. bomber forward operating location in the U.K., where American strategic aircraft are frequently forward deployed for Bomber Task Force missions. Major bomber operations have been staged out of the base in the past, including major strikes against Iraq.

Last June, when the U.S. launched the Operation Midnight Hammer attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, the B-2 bombers flew roundtrip from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. However, that was a one-night operation. Trump is now considering what is likely to be a week’s long campaign against Iranian leadership, nuclear infrastructure, missile launch sites and associated industry, and other military installations and command and control nodes. 

It would be extremely helpful for the U.S. to use Diego Garcia, and possibly RAF Fairford, to stage, rearm and maintain the B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers that could be used to strike Iran.

It is about 2,300 miles from Diego Garcia to the eastern border of Iran and about 2,500 miles from RAF Fairford to the western border. By contrast, Whiteman AFB, one of many bases in the U.S. housing strategic aircraft, is located about 6,500 miles from Iran’s western border. Having access to the two U.K. bases would allow the U.S. Air Force to increase the generation of bomber sorties, especially important in the opening of a campaign. It would also help reduce wear and tear on the aircraft and crews.

Though the U.S. has not deployed any bombers to Diego Garcia, we have been reporting that America is transiting scores of fighters, electronic warfare jets, radar planes, aerial refueling tankers and other aviation assets from RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath to that region. It is unclear if that will change if the fighting starts. Traditionally, these types of limitations are focused on actual combat sorties, not aircraft transiting through in order to get to another destination.

That being said, the U.S. does have other basing options, even for its sensitive B-2 Spirit bomber force. The Air Force has put a high priority on training to operate even these notoriously finicky jets out of unfamiliar and somewhat austere locations. Deployments to the Azores, Iceland and Wake Island, among others, are evidence of this. The B-52s and B-1s are even more flexible and have operated out of multiple allies’ airfields in recent years. But operating from a forward locale in a limited fashion is different than flying from an installation that is pre-equipped with all the amenities needed to keep sortie rates up during a conflict. Regardless, any other country would have to approve the use of bombers based on its soil to attack Iran.

A similar situation involving permission for the use of Diego Garcia took place shortly before Midnight Hammer. The U.K. government said it would have to sign off on the U.S. use of its Diego Garcia base in any bombing raid on Iran, The Guardian reported at the time. Britain was informed of the U.S. military strikes on Iran ahead of time, but did not receive any U.S. request for use of Diego Garcia for that mission, according to Reuters.

The impetus behind this latest move, according to The Times, is a dispute over control of Diego Garcia, which is part of the Chagos Islands. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is pushing for a deal to seek a 99-year lease of the island from Mauritius, which claims rights to this chain. Trump, who has previously backed the plan, on Wednesday blasted it, widening a growing rift between the two allies over the issue.

“I have been telling Prime Minister Keir Starmer, of the United Kingdom, that Leases are no good when it comes to Countries, and that he is making a big mistake by entering a 100 Year Lease with whoever it is that is ‘claiming’ Right, Title, and Interest to Diego Garcia, strategically located in the Indian Ocean,” Trump proclaimed Wednesday on his Truth Social site. “Our relationship with the United Kingdom is a strong and powerful one, and it has been for many years, but Prime Minister Starmer is losing control of this important Island by claims of entities never known of before. In our opinion, they are fictitious in nature.”

In his Truth Social post, Trump pointed to the strategic importance of both Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford in any campaign against Iran.

“Should Iran decide not to make a Deal, it may be necessary for the United States to use Diego Garcia, and the Airfield located in Fairford, in order to eradicate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous Regime — An attack that would potentially be made on the United Kingdom, as well as other friendly Countries,” the U.S. president posited. “Prime Minister Starmer should not lose control, for any reason, of Diego Garcia, by entering a tenuous, at best, 100 Year Lease. This land should not be taken away from the U.K. and, if it is allowed to be, it will be a blight on our Great Ally. We will always be ready, willing, and able to fight for the U.K., but they have to remain strong in the face of Wokeism, and other problems put before them. DO NOT GIVE AWAY DIEGO GARCIA!”

In its story on Thursday, The Times claimed that Trump pulled his support for Starmer’s lease deal after the U.K. refused to allow its bases to be used to strike Iran.

“The White House is drawing up detailed military plans for a strike against Iran involving the use of both Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, which is home to America’s fleet of heavy bombers in Europe,” The Times stated. “Under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, these bases can only be used for military operations that have been agreed in advance with the government.”

The Times “understands that the UK is yet to give permission for the US to use the bases in the event that Trump orders a strike on Iran, owing to concerns that it would be a breach of international law which makes no distinction between a state carrying out the attack and those in support if the latter have ‘knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act,’” the publication proffered. “The president spoke to the prime minister on Tuesday night, and the two men discussed Trump’s ultimatum to Iran over its nuclear program. The following day, Trump made his statement attacking the Chagos deal.”

The U.K. MoD Defense Ministry (MoD) declined to talk about operational details, but did declare its support for Trump’s push to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Iran.

“There is a political process ongoing between the US and Iran, which the UK supports,” the U.K. MoD told us in a statement. “Iran must never be able to develop a nuclear weapon, and our priority is security in the region.”

A White House official told us that “President Trump’s first instinct is always diplomacy, and he has been clear that the Iranian regime should make a deal. Of course, the President ultimately has all options at his disposal, and he demonstrated with Operation Midnight Hammer and Operation Absolute Resolve that he means what he says.”

We have reached out to the White House, the Pentagon, U.S. Central Command, U.S. IndoPacific Command and the U.K. Ministry of Defense for more details.

Despite the controversy over Diego Garcia, the U.S. buildup of forces continues unabated. For instance, just this morning, another flight of F-22 Raptor stealth fighters left Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, most likely bound for Mildenhall or Lakenheath. You can read more about the massive influx of forces to the Middle East in our story here.

Whether the U.K. will end up fully enforcing restrictions against the U.S. use of its bases in a kinetic operation against Iran, only time will tell. In the meantime, how this is impacting U.S. war planning isn’t clear, but if it sticks, it will certainly alter those plans and reduce the magnitude of U.S. bombers’ role in a conflict.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

EL TORO — In an extraordinary step, Brig. Gen. Wayne T. Adams has permanently banished from local Marine bases the man he fired as his chief of staff, refusing him access to the officers’ club, the golf course and other facilities usually open to retired personnel.

Col. Joseph E. Underwood, 51, was fired from his post earlier this year and later retired amid allegations that included using base planes for golfing jaunts. Adams decided last week that, because of the charges, the colonel could no longer use the air bases at El Toro or Tustin, his spokesman, Maj. Jim V. McClain, said Monday.

“He’s debarred from this base–period,” McClain said. “He is not allowed to come aboard this base,” except for medical care and commissary visits with his wife, who is ailing, he added.

“The commanding general made the determination that, by the nature of the offenses, Col. Underwood’s presence on the El Toro and Tustin bases was prejudicial to the good order and discipline and proper functioning of these two bases,” McClain said of Adams’ decision.

Adams himself is under investigation by the Marine Corps inspector general’s office for his own use of military planes during trips to Florida, Big Bear and elsewhere.

McClain would not elaborate on what caused Underwood’s banishment. Underwood, however, said he believes that it came as a result of statements he made in an article two weeks ago in The Times Orange County Edition in his first interview since his disciplining.

“It’s so petty. Why don’t they just let it go away?” Underwood complained. “They’ve already killed Col. Sabow–what do they want from me?”

Col. James E. Sabow was the assistant chief of staff at El Toro who killed himself in January, after being suspended also in connection with allegations of misuse of base planes. Underwood and Sabow’s family have charged that what they characterize as the military’s mishandling of the investigation drove Sabow to suicide.

Military officials have vigorously disputed that assertion. McClain on Monday would not discuss Underwood’s claims that he was being “harassed” in the same way that Underwood said Sabow was or that his debarment was spurred by his comments in the Times article.

Underwood, known as “the mayor” of the El Toro base during a sometimes stormy four-year stint as chief of staff, asserted in the article that he had not done anything wrong in his use of base C-12 Beechcraft planes and that Adams had reneged on promises to end the matter quietly.

Underwood also asserted that Adams himself had once ordered a plane to pick him up from a family emergency, even after Underwood had specifically told him that doing so was against regulations.

The Marine Corps is now investigating whether Adams improperly mixed personal and business trips in that case and at least four other flights he took around the country.

In the newest step of that investigation, Adams is to meet in Washington today with the Marines’ inspector general, Maj. Gen. Hollis Davison, officials said.

In his position as commander of the Marines’ western air bases, Adams maintains authority over who can and cannot use government facilities. It was with this authority that he barred Underwood, a move that officials said probably cannot be appealed through the military.

McClain said 175 people–both military and civilian–have been barred from western air bases in the last five years. He did not have a breakdown of these people by rank, but Underwood and three other military officials, in Washington and on the West Coast, said debarments of officers–much less of a colonel–are extremely rare.

“It’s an extraordinary measure for someone of his rank and time of service to be debarred from a base–it’s just not done,” said one high-ranking officer close to the case.

Underwood, a veteran of three decades’ service, said that during his time at El Toro, there were debarments “many times for criminals–drug dealers, thieves, wife beaters, attempted rapists. . . . But how many colonels have ever been barred from a base? The answer I’m sure is zero. . . .”

While Underwood was visiting the East Coast last week, the El Toro command went so far as to boot the tires on his two cars on the base to ensure that he would see the base provost marshal and pick up the letter informing him of his debarment. The letter activates the order.

Since his firing earlier this year, Underwood had been staying in base officers’ quarters for about $5 a day, and he had planned to return there when he gets back to El Toro in mid-May. As a result of his banishment, he will have to find other temporary housing until he joins his wife in a few months to begin a vacation.

He also will not be able to attend official base functions or use facilities such as the officers’ club, the golf course and other recreational sites open to retired officers. He can only use the commissary when accompanied by his wife, McClain said.

One source close to the case said that Underwood’s debarment came in part because of prodding from the Marine Commandant’s office in Washington.

The banishment had been discussed in February at the time Underwood pleaded guilty to charges against him and agreed to pay fines and restitution before his retirement. The ban was not carried out at that time. But later, people from Washington “had seen him on the golf course at El Toro” and it angered them, the source said.