A Rather Caustic Observation on the Gulf War

When the US pulled its B-1 bombers out of England and flew them home, most of the media greeted the news with a shrug. Air and Space Forces Magazine was a notable exception. Its headline read: “All B-1 Bombers Leave RAF Fairford in Hasty Departure from UK Base.” Hasty? Indeed.

Naturally, the administration insisted it was no big deal. “I think we can say that — I mean, they didn’t fly out by accident,” Trump said from the White House. “There were some threats, and rather than tempting the enemy, we’ll capture the enemy and beat the enemy. But why should we leave them there? So we moved them around a little bit.” If that isn’t word salad, I don’t know what is.

JD Vance was marginally more coherent: “I think that we’re going to be as careful as we possibly can be. We do feel with some confidence that the Iranians are, you know, they’re trying to do what the Iranian state has done for 49 years, which is engage in acts of terrorism against the United States and against a lot of other people as well.” Clearer, yes, but still at least a side salad.

For reasons known only to the White House, it was Marco Rubio, not Hegseth, who was quoted on the matter. He declined to “directly tie” the redeployment to the alleged Iranian plot: “The only reason why you guys are focused on how many planes are at Fairford is because of the threat that happened last week. But it’s not unusual to see rotations happen and movement of assets to different parts of the world based on exercises, redeployments, people changing out and new people coming in, new planes coming in, old planes going out.”

Let’s be honest: this was a big effing deal. British and American officials themselves said they had specific, credible information that Iranian-backed operatives were planning drone strikes on the planes and on US troops from just outside the base’s fence. Six people have been arrested in connection with the plot. Pulling the bombers out is, plain and simple, a retreat. Sure, as Trump says, the B-1s can still reach their targets from the US, but that means far longer and far more expensive missions. The drone and missile attacks of a supposedly “defeated” Iranian military have pushed US forces back from the very bases that gave them quick access to the war.

And Fairford isn’t the only case. A close friend who follows these matters tells me that American personnel have been evacuated from bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, all within range of Iranian missiles and drones. Some of those bases were damaged so badly that there is little appetite inside the Pentagon to rebuild them. The naval supply chain now runs through Diego Garcia, 2,000 miles away.

Some context on the British bases: Fairford has no permanently assigned US Air Force aircraft, but it supports US operations and is the main American bomber site in Europe. The Air Force’s permanent UK presence is at RAF Lakenheath, home to F-35A Lightning II and F-15E fighters that have been deployed for operations against Iran. Lakenheath also serves as a stopover for fighters moving between the US and the Middle East. Nearby, RAF Mildenhall hosts the KC-135 tankers of the 100th Air Refueling Wing.

So my question is whether the US will pull its aircraft from those bases too. Either way, abandoning Fairford is a bad look.

I wrote earlier that the administration was crowing that oil was flowing through the strait again, the Saudis were hitting the Houthis, and the blockade had pushed Iran to the brink. I suppose the latest news is just postmortem twitching, the cadaveric spasms of a beaten foe. Right? Iran attacked a tanker near Qatar, causing several casualties. The Houthis then struck the international airport in Riyadh, killing three people and damaging aircraft and facilities. And oil prices jumped right back up.

Meanwhile, for whatever reason, Trump has announced that the US won’t resume the air campaign against Iran until after the midterms. Doesn’t that give Tehran every incentive to escalate, betting that enough pressure will push the president toward a diplomatic deal? Telegraphing what you won’t do strikes me as a bit foolish. But then, I lack the president’s cache of intelligence, his learned advisors and his military acumen.