Israel-Iran conflict: US removes warplanes from Al Udeid Airbase in Qatar; see satellite images
Al Udeid Air Base outside of Doha, Qatar, after many aircraft on its tarmac left, June 18, 2025 (left), and a MH-60S Sea Hawk helicopter hovering over the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier while operating in the Middle East. (AP)
Satellite images show that dozens of US military aircraft are no longer visible on the tarmac at a major US base in Qatar, news agency AFP reported. This may be a step to protect them from possible Iranian air strikes, as the United States considers whether to join Israel in its ongoing conflict with Iran in the Middle East.
Images from Planet Labs PBC on June 5, the AFP report says, showed nearly 40 military aircraft at Al Udeid Air Base. These included transport aircraft like the Hercules C-130 and reconnaissance planes. By June 19, a new image showed only three aircraft visible on the tarmac.
The US embassy in Qatar said Thursday that access to the base would be limited "out of an abundance of caution and in light of ongoing regional hostilities," and asked personnel to "exercise increased vigilance."
— sentdefender (@sentdefender)
The White House said on Thursday that US President Donald Trump will make a decision in the next two weeks on whether to support Israel's military strikes on Iran. Iran may respond by targeting US bases in the region.
"He will make a decision within the next two weeks" about taking a direct military role in the conflict, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at a press briefing.
Aircraft, personnel, and facilities at Al Udeid base would be "extremely vulnerable" due to its "close proximity" to Iran, Mark Schwartz, a former US Army lieutenant general and defense researcher at the Rand Corporation, was quoted as saying by the AFP.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
They Were So Beautiful Before; Now Look At Them; Number 10 Will Shock You
Reportingly
Undo
Schwartz, who has served in the Middle East, told AFP that even shrapnel could make the aircraft "non-mission capable."
"You want to reduce risk to US forces, both personnel and equipment," he said.
The aircraft that are no longer visible on the tarmac may have been moved into hangars or relocated to other bases in the area.
US forces in the region have been active since Israel began its strikes on Iran almost a week ago. An additional aircraft carrier is on its way, and there has been increased aircraft movement.
AFP report also mentions that open-source data tracking of the movement of aircraft found that between June 15 and 18, at least 27 military refueling planes — KC-46A Pegasus and KC-135 Stratotanker — flew from the US to Europe.
As of late Wednesday, 25 of those planes remained in Europe, while only two had returned to the United States, according to the data.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Trump Peace Prize': GOP's Matt Gaetz says Israel giving up nukes could win Trump Nobel; MAGA split over Iran
Matt Gaetz (AP photo), Donald Trump (AI image) Matt Gaetz, the former Republican Congressman from Florida, said Thursday that Israel should also give up on its nuclear weapons and if US president Donald Trump could get it done, he would win the Nobel Peace Prize. 'If Trump pulled that off,' he said, 'they wouldn't just give him the Nobel Peace Prize — they'd rename it the Trump Peace Prize,' Gaetz said on his prime time show on One America News Network he hosts now. The Republican sharply criticise US involvement in the Israel–Iran conflict. He argued that what's being sold as a war to stop Iran's nuclear programme was another push by Israel for regime change in the Middle East — one that looks a lot like the lead-up to the Iraq war. 'Israel didn't kick their regime change habit with Iraq or Libya or Syria. It seems they need another fix,' Gaetz said. 'I wish this was really about Iran's nuclear programme, but it's not.' Gaetz further said Iran, unlike North Korea, didn't currently have nuclear weapons, long-range delivery systems, or re-entry capability. 'North Korea could launch a nuclear weapon at the US today. Iran can't even get their bird in the air,' he added. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Scam Exposed: What They Won't Tell You about zero trust! Expertinspector Click Here Undo Gaetz served on the House Armed Services Committee for eight years and claimed to have seen the intelligence briefings himself. He pointed out that North Korea had issued open threats against US cities like Los Angeles and Seattle, but the US wasn't bombing their missile sites. Gaetz said that the current war push was politically motivated and hypocritical — especially because Israel's own nuclear programme remained off-limits to international inspectors. 'There's a secret nuclear programme in the Middle East — and it's Israel's,' Gaetz said. 'They won't allow inspectors, they operate in full secrecy, and everyone in Washington knows it.' He said he didn't blame Israel for wanting a nuclear deterrent, but called it unfair to push the world towards war over one country's suspected weapons while ignoring another's. 'To drag us into a regime change war over secret nuclear weapons when your ally also has secret nuclear weapons — that's hypocritical.' Gaetz played old Fox News clips showing support for the Iraq invasion, where anchors described Saddam Hussein as an urgent threat and promised a quick, decisive victory. 'I saw how wrong they were,' he said. 'I went to the funerals. I saw the graves. We paid the price. Iraq war cost America $3 trillion and contributed to the rise of ISIS and China's global power." He also aired a recent clip from Tucker Carlson's show where Senator Ted Cruz couldn't tell the population of Iran while defending military action. Gaetz used it as an example of how disconnected Washington leaders were from the wars they supported. 'It's easy to back war from a Senate office or Fox News studio. No one's firing missiles at you there,' Gaetz said. 'But real people — soldiers — will have to fight and die. And many will.' The Israel–Iran war has caused divisions within Trump's MAGA circle. Gaetz, Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Steve Bannon have all warned against US involvement. In contrast, Fox News hosts like Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, along with Senators Lindsey Graham and Cruz, support Israel's actions. Trump himself has not made things clear. He has demanded Iran's 'unconditional surrender' but also said, 'Maybe we won't have to fight. I'm not looking to fight. But if it's a choice between fighting and them having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do.'
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
UK lawmakers to vote on allowing terminally ill adults to end their lives
Representative AI image British lawmakers are set to vote Friday on whether to back a bill to help terminally ill adults end their lives in England and Wales, in what could be one of the most consequential social policy decisions they will ever make. Members of Parliament supported legalizing assisted dying when they first debated the issue in November by 330 votes to 275. Since then, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has undergone months of scrutiny leading to some changes in the proposed legislation, which is being shepherded through Parliament by Labour lawmaker Kim Leadbeater rather than the government. Leadbeater is confident lawmakers will back the bill. "We have the most robust piece of legislation in the world in front of us tomorrow, and I know that many colleagues have engaged very closely with the legislation and will make their decision based on those facts and that evidence, and that cannot be disputed," Leadbeater said Thursday on the eve of the vote alongside bereaved and terminally ill people. Proponents of the bill argue those with a terminal diagnosis must be given a choice at the end of their lives. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo However, opponents say the disabled and elderly could be at risk of being coerced, directly or indirectly, to end their lives to save money or relieve the burden on family members. Others have called for the improvement of palliative care to ease suffering as an alternative. The vote is potentially the biggest change to social policy since abortion was legalized in 1967. What lawmakers are voting on The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would allow terminally ill adults aged over 18 in England and Wales, who are deemed to have less than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death. The terminally ill person would have to be capable of taking the fatal drugs themselves. Proponents of the bill say wealthy individuals can travel to Switzerland, which allows foreigners to legally end their lives, while others have to face possible prosecution for helping their loves ones die. How the vote may go The outcome of the vote is unclear, as some lawmakers who backed the bill in the fall only did so on the proviso there would be changes made. Some who backed the bill then have voiced disappointment at the changes, while others have indicated Parliament has not been given enough time to debate the issues. The vote is a free one, meaning lawmakers vote according to their conscience rather than on party lines. Alliances have formed across the political divide. If 28 members switched directly from backing the bill to opposing it, while others voted exactly the same way, the legislation would fail. Timeline if the bill passes Friday's vote is not the end of the matter. The legislation would then go to the unelected House of Lords, which has the power to delay and amend policy, though it can't overrule the lower chamber. Since assisted dying was not in the governing Labour Party's election manifesto last year, the House of Lords has more room to maneuver. Any amendments would then go back to the House of Commons. If the bill is passed, backers say implementation will take four years, rather than the initially suggested two. That means it could become law in 2029, around the time the next general election must be held. Changes to the bill Plenty of revisions have been made to the measure, but not enough for some. Perhaps the most important change was to drop the requirement that a judge sign off on any decision. Many in the legal profession had objected. Now any request would be subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Changes also were made to ensure the establishment of independent advocates to support people with learning disabilities, autism or mental health conditions and the creation of a disability advisory board. No involvement of health care practitioners It was already the case that doctors would not be required to take part, but lawmakers have since voted to insert a new clause into the bill extending the provision to anyone. The wording means "no person," including social care workers and pharmacists, is obliged to take part in assisted dying and can therefore opt out. The government's stance There is clear no consensus in the cabinet about the measure. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has indicated he will back the bill on Friday. His health secretary, Wes Streeting, is opposed but said he will respect the outcome. There are also questions about how it would impact the U.K.'s state-funded National Health Service, hospice care and the legal system. Nations where assisted dying is legal Other countries that have legalized assisted suicide include Australia, Belgium, Canada and parts of the United States, with regulations on who is eligible varying by jurisdiction. Assisted suicide is different from euthanasia, allowed in the Netherlands and Canada, which involves health care practitioners administering a lethal injection at the patient's request in specific circumstances.
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
Iran-Israel conflict: Donald Trump's caution on joining Israel airstrikes rooted in fears of creating 'another Libya'
President Donald Trump's recent hesitation to authorise military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities is rooted in a deep-seated concern: the risk of plunging Iran into chaos reminiscent of Libya's collapse after the 2011 NATO intervention. As per a New York Post report citing multiple administration insiders, Trump has repeatedly cited the North African nation's descent into anarchy as a cautionary tale, shaping his approach to the escalating crisis with Iran. The Libya precedent: A decade of anarchy Libya's trajectory after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi stands as a stark warning in Trump's mind, as per the report. In 2011, following a NATO-led bombing campaign—supported by the United States—the long-standing dictator was overthrown. Rather than ushering in stability, Gaddafi's ouster triggered a prolonged period of civil war, political fragmentation, and violence. The country has since splintered into rival governments and militias, with no unified authority and ongoing conflict between factions based in Tripoli and the east. Trump's frequent references to Libya are twofold, sources said: first, the chaos that ensued after Gaddafi's removal; second, the way the intervention complicated future negotiations with other adversarial states, such as North Korea and Iran. "He doesn't want it to turn into Libya," one insider said, underscoring Trump's reluctance to repeat what he sees as a costly and destabilising precedent. A two-week breather In the wake of Israel's recent preemptive airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites, Trump has opted to delay any US involvement for up to two weeks. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the president's wait-and-see approach, citing the "substantial chance of negotiations" with Iran that may or may not materialize in the near future. Iran's foreign minister is expected to meet with European counterparts in Geneva, while Trump's special envoy continues backchannel communications. The administration's posture is one of cautious patience, with Trump reportedly weighing input from advisors, international leaders, and the American public. Limited strikes, not regime change As per the New York Post report, sources close to the administration indicate that Trump's preferred military option, if any, would be tightly focused: limited airstrikes targeting Iran's nuclear facilities at Fordow and Natanz using 30,000-pound "bunker buster" bombs —munitions that Israel's air force cannot deliver. The goal would be to neutralise Iran's nuclear capabilities without toppling Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei or triggering a broader conflict. 'Libya was a much more extended kind of bombing commitment, and it ended up being regime change,' one source noted, contrasting it with Trump's current thinking. 'If the regime falls [in Iran], then it's not on Trump, because that's not the goal of his very limited strike'. The president's reluctance to pursue regime change is also informed by the fear that a successor to Khamenei could be even more dangerous, and by a desire not to get entangled in the question of who governs Iran—a stance that resonates with his political base. Trump's caution is further shaped by the broader regional context. The Middle East is littered with examples—Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen—where US interventions have led to protracted instability and civil war.
