Under the shadow of a rapidly escalating conflict between Iran and Israel, the United States has discreetly relocated nearly all combat and refueling aircraft from its largest airbase in the Middle East, according to new satellite imagery analyzed this week. The move comes amid intensifying regional threats, particularly as Iranian retaliation against Israeli strikes continues to spiral and draws global attention to US military posture in the Gulf.
Satellite images captured by Planet Labs and reviewed by defense analysts at Business Insider reveal a near-total withdrawal of aircraft from Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which had hosted dozens of US fighter jets, bombers, and tankers until earlier this month. The June 19 images show just three aircraft remaining, compared to nearly 40 observed on June 5.
“This is not just routine redeployment. The rapid drawdown from Al Udeid indicates Washington’s strategic effort to safeguard assets amid threats from Tehran,” said Ryan Bohl, senior Middle East analyst at RANE Network, in an interview with The Guardian.
Flight paths, satellites, and shifting war lines
The US withdrawal aligns with earlier reports from Russian Gazeta confirming the relocation of Lockheed C-5M Super Galaxy transport aircraft to bases in southern Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Flightradar24 trackers showed one C-5M landing near Al Harj on June 19 before returning to Italy’s Aviano Air Base. Another was spotted over Kuwait’s Al-Wafrah on June 20, indicating rapid logistical adjustments in the region.
While the Pentagon has not officially commented on the satellite findings, anonymous US defense officials told The Washington Post that the repositioning was part of a “proactive dispersal strategy to reduce vulnerability” of key air assets in case of Iranian ballistic missile retaliation.
Behind-the-scenes moves: Bombers, carriers, and covert deployments
The airbase withdrawal is just one element in a broader realignment of US military forces in the Middle East. On June 17, US Central Command deployed two aircraft carrier strike groups—USS Nimitz and USS Carl Vinson—to eastern Mediterranean and Arabian Sea positions. Defense analysts say the deployment is meant to serve both as a deterrent and as a rapid response platform if American forces are targeted directly.
Meanwhile, The Guardian reported the quiet repositioning of B‑2 stealth bombers to Diego Garcia and undisclosed bases in Europe. The aircraft are believed to be outfitted with GBU‑57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs, designed specifically to penetrate deeply fortified sites like Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility.
On Monday night, the US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, said he had “directed the deployment of additional capabilities” to US Central Command in the Middle East, an exercise he said was “to enhance our defensive posture in the region”.
Congressional concerns and strategic ambiguity
Back in Washington, reactions are mixed. While the Trump administration insists its deployments are strictly defensive, several members of Congress have called for legislation requiring explicit authorization before any offensive action against Iran.
Senator Chris Murphy (D‑Conn.), a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has issued a forceful rebuke of unilateral US military action, emphasizing Congress’s constitutional role. “There is no imminent threat to America from Iran,” Murphy said via his X,(Formely Twitter) “The President does not have the authority to make this decision. There is no imminent threat to America from Iran. He cannot take this action without congressional authorization. I will not vote to give him that authority, and I likely represent the majority of Congress.” He warned further that the US “The President does not have the authority to make this decision. There is no imminent threat to America from Iran. He cannot take this action without congressional authorization. I will not vote to give him that authority, and I likely represent the majority of Congress,” urging the administration to obtain formal legal approval before deploying American bombers or payloads against Tehran—underscoring a broader institutional concern that Washington may be drifting toward a conflict without democratic or legal oversight .
Analysts say the aircraft relocation from Al Udeid adds ambiguity to US intentions. By avoiding a central targetable hub, the Pentagon may be seeking both strategic flexibility and political deniability. However, the danger remains that any miscalculation—such as a misfired Iranian missile hitting an American destroyer—could force a full-scale engagement.
Tehran watches, and responds
Iranian officials have openly criticized the United States for enabling what they describe as aggressive and unlawful Israeli military actions in the region. In recent briefings, commanders of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) emphasized that American bases across the Middle East—particularly in the Gulf and Red Sea corridors—are well within the range of Iranian precision missile systems. The statements come amid heightened alert levels in Iran’s missile command following Israeli airstrikes targeting critical infrastructure.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin has reinforced its position by categorically denouncing Israel’s attacks on Iranian territory. Russian officials labeled the strikes as deliberate provocations, warning that Western complicity—especially Washington’s military backing—risks triggering wider destabilization in the region. Moscow has continued to support Tehran’s right to self-defense under international law and criticized US policy as inflaming tensions rather than seeking diplomatic resolution.
A warning signal to the region
As Al Udeid’s runways sit eerily empty, the images send a powerful message—not just of strategic defense, but of how seriously Washington views the threat of Iranian retaliation. The swift, secretive relocation echoes lessons learned from past conflicts in Iraq and Syria, where centralized US assets became prime targets.
For now, the American posture is one of restraint balanced with readiness. But in a region where a single missile can ignite a geopolitical inferno, the decision to clear out Al Udeid may be the first step in a larger, far more dangerous game.
