New Satellite Image Shows U.S. Air Force Buildup at Key Indian Ocean Base
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A new satellite image showed a buildup of U.S. Air Force assets at Diego Garcia, a strategic American base in the Indian Ocean. The development comes as tensions are high across the Middle East and Indo-Pacific after U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran.
Newsweek has reached out to the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) for comment.
Why It Matters
Diego Garcia serves as a critical forward base for U.S. military operations stretching from the Middle East to Southeast Asia. Its remote location and extensive airfield make it a key launching point for long-range strike missions and rapid-response deployments.
The deployments at the base suggest a readiness for further military action in the region.
This image captured by the European Space Agency's Sentinel-2 satellites on June 29 shows U.S. military aircraft posture at the Diego Garcia base.
This image captured by the European Space Agency's Sentinel-2 satellites on June 29 shows U.S. military aircraft posture at the Diego Garcia base.
Copernicus/Sentinel Hub
What To Know
The new satellite image revealed a U.S. aircraft presence at Diego Garcia that includes four B-52 strategic bombers, six F-15 fighter jets, and six KC-135 aerial refueling tankers, according to open-intelligence analyst MT Anderson on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Diego Garcia's remote location—about 2,200 miles from Iran and 3,000 from southern China—provides a secure launch point for U.S. aircraft to conduct long-range missions and remain on station.
Imagery captured by Chinese satellite company MizarVision on June 25, 2025, shows U.S. forces at Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, a joint British-American military base in British Indian Ocean Territory roughly 2,650 miles southeast of...
Imagery captured by Chinese satellite company MizarVision on June 25, 2025, shows U.S. forces at Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, a joint British-American military base in British Indian Ocean Territory roughly 2,650 miles southeast of Iran. More
MizarVision
Significant movement of military equipment at the air base had been taking place since March with experts believing it could be a staging point for any attack on Iran.
In May, the U.S. Air Force announced that B-2 Spirit bombers had returned to Missouri after a deployment to Diego Garcia. On June 13, the U.S. launched a surprise overnight strike on three key Iranian nuclear facilities using B-2 stealth bombers that took off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.
The overnight mission relied on deception, aerial refueling, and near-total radio silence to maintain secrecy and tactical surprise. Decoy flights toward the Pacific diverted attention from the actual eastward strike.
Codenamed Operation Midnight Hammer, seven B-2 bombers dropped over a dozen 30,000-pound bunker busters on deeply buried nuclear sites., making it the most ambitious U.S. stealth airstrike in decades. The bombers had also been used in striking Iran-backed Houthi targets in Yemen.
What People Are Saying
Air Marshall Greg Bagwell, former Royal Air Force deputy operations chief told BBC Verify in June: "You would be able to maintain a sustained operation from [Diego Garcia] far more efficiently. You could literally have them round the clock operating."
What Happens Next
Diego Garcia's assets remain well-positioned to respond swiftly should tensions in the Middle East or Indo-Pacific escalate, as a ceasefire between Israel and Iran remains fragile and U.S.-Iran diplomatic negotiations are stalled in post-conflict tensions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House Pushes B.S. About ‘Big Beautiful Bill' as Popularity Craters
President Donald Trump has insisted that Republicans get his so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill' to his desk by the Fourth of July. With only days left before the self-imposed deadline, the White House is now scrambling to do damage control around the deeply unpopular legislation produced by Congress. A series of recent polls shows that the bill — which will force millions off of Medicaid, restrict access to food assistance programs, and cost the poorest Americans billions over the next 10 — is underwater with the public. A Washington Post survey recently produced a net favorability rating of -19. Fox News clocked in at -21, a Quinnipiac poll produced a -26 rating, and KFF — formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation — found net favorability to be at -29 points. In the face of this widespread public disapproval and the GOP's inter-party squabbling over the bill, the White House is pushing 'fact checks' insisting that the legislation would not hurt low-income families or the economy at large, and that it is not just a dressed-up tax break for billionaires at the expense of everyone and everything else. In a 'fact check' sheet issued Sunday night by the White House Communication Office, the administration claimed that the legislation would 'put more than $10,000 a year back in the pockets of typical hardworking families,' that the 'OBBB protects and strengthens Medicaid for those who rely on it,' and that the suggestion that people will 'literally die' if denied access to health care is 'one of the most egregious deranged attacks from the Left peddling fear over the facts.' The document repeatedly emphasized that American households would be taking home an extra $10,000 in income a year. Huge, right? Unfortunately — but not unexpectedly — the figure is a gross misrepresentation. The figure, which was circulated in several communications released by the White House and touted by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt during a briefing earlier this month, is the high end of a projection produced by the Council of Economic Advisers – an internal White House agency. According to a Politifact review, the Council's range of a $7,600-$10,900 increase in annual take-home pay for a family of four was based on uniquely optimistic projections about how much total economic stimulus the 'Big Beautiful Bill' would produce. Where other independent agencies have predicted a maximum GDP increase of around 0.5-2 percent over the next 10 years, the counsel assumed an almost five percent increase over five years and a weighted 2.9-3.5 percent increase over 10 years. The $10,000 figure isn't a tangible change in income based on rewrites to the tax code, but rather a fantastical number carved out of an imaginary GDP boom. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Trump's enshrinement of his 2017 tax cuts, along with the exclusionary reforms being made to programs like Medicaid and SNAP, will cost the lowest-earning tenth of American households about $1,600 a year. 'Federal and state in-kind benefits would decrease household resources by $1.0 trillion,' the CBO wrote. 'Primarily because federal spending on benefits provided through Medicaid and SNAP would be lower. Changes to program benefits that states made in response to changes in federal policy would also reduce household resources.' Meanwhile, the richest Americans would see 'resources would increase, on average, over the projection period by about $12,000,' or even more given to the favorable pro-corporate policies packed into the bill. During Monday's press briefing, Leavitt insisted that 'this bill strengthens Medicaid,' and that rural hospitals were exaggerating the potential fallout of spending cuts to the program. According to the CBO, 11 million Americans could be squeezed out of their health care coverage over changes to Medicaid, bureaucratic red tape, more stringent work requirements, and changes to public insurance marketplaces. According to KFF, 'an estimated 1.5 million fewer people could be covered by Medicaid in rural areas under the reconciliation bill in 2034,' and the resulting drop in Medicaid enrollment could force rural hospitals and clinics — often the only nodes connecting rural Americans to the health care system — to close down. The bill 'protects' Medicaid only in the sense that the program will continue to exist, but it in no way protects the Americans who rely on it for their health. Millions of them will be forced to find care elsewhere if Republicans pass the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' More from Rolling Stone Senate Republicans Pass Trump's Bill to Strip Health Care From Millions J.D. Vance Dismisses Kicking Millions Off Medicaid: 'Minutiae' Trump Teases Deporting Elon: 'We'll Have to Take a Look' Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
16 minutes ago
Mexican banks face cascading consequences following US sanctions
Mexico City -- Three Mexican financial institutions sanctioned by the Trump administration last week have felt a cascade of economic consequences following the allegations that they helped launder millions of dollars for drug cartels. It comes after the U.S. Treasury Department announced that it was blocking transactions between American banks and Mexican branches of CIBanco and Intercam Banco, as well as the brokering firm Vector Casa de Bolsa. In presenting the sanctions on June 25, officials provided no evidence to back their claims, fueling criticism from Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. Shortly after, Mexico's banking authority announced that it was temporarily taking over management of CIBanco and Intercam Banco to protect creditors. Sheinbaum said on Tuesday that the Mexican government is doing everything within it's power to ensure that creditors aren't affected, but said they were well 'within their right' to pull their money from the banks. The U.S. Treasury Department said that the sanctions would go into effect 21 days after the announcement. All three companies have fiercely rejected those claims. Despite that, the financial institutions have been dealt economic blows following the announcement, which are set to have stretching impacts on the companies. Days after the announcement Fitch Rating downgraded the three institutions and other affiliates, citing 'anti-money laundering concerns' and saying the drop 'reflects the imminent negative impact' that the sanctions could have. 'The new ratings reflect the significantly more vulnerable credit profile of these entities in response to the aforementioned warnings, given the potential impact on their ability to meet their financial obligations,' the credit rating agency wrote in a statement. On Monday, CI Banco announced that Visa Inc. had announced to them with little warning that it had 'unilaterally decided to disconnect its platform for all international transactions' through CIBanco. The bank accused Visa of not complying with the 21-day grace period laid out by the U.S. Treasury Department sanctions. "We would like to reiterate that your funds are safe and can be reimbursed through our branch network," the bank wrote. 'We reiterate to our customers that this was a decision beyond CIBanco's control.' S&P Ratings also withdrew CI Banco from its ratings index, saying that it was because it had terminated its contracts with the bank following the U.S. Treasury announcement.
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
44 percent say US becoming less patriotic: Survey
Forty-four percent of Americans said the country is becoming less patriotic, significantly more than the share who said Americans are becoming more patriotic, according to a new survey published Tuesday. The Economist/YouGov poll found that 44 percent of Americans think that the country is becoming less patriotic, while 14 percent said they think that the nation is becoming more patriotic. Some 42 percent said the level of patriotism has remained about the same. The majority of Americans, 75 percent, consider themselves either very, 37 percent, or somewhat, 38 percent, patriotic. Around 16 percent said they are 'not very' patriotic, while nine percent said they are 'not at all' patriotic. Twice as many Republicans said they are very patriotic, 54 percent, compared to Democrats, 27 percent, the survey found. Just over half of Americans, 51 percent, said they have an American flag at home. When divided by party, 68 percent of Republican voters said they have the U.S. flag at home, more than 30 points higher than the 37 percent of Democrats who said they had one. Nearly a quarter of Americans, 23 percent, display their American flag every day. Six percent said sometimes, while 14 percent stated that they have it out on holidays and special occasions. Another six percent said they never display the flag, according to the poll. The majority of respondents, 70 percent, said that flying an American flag is an act of patriotism. Some 16 percent disagreed, while 14 percent were unsure. Republicans and Democrats differ on the question with 89 percent of GOP voters saying flying the U.S. flag is an act of patriotism. Around 58 percent of Democratic Party voters said the same. The survey was conducted from June 27-30 among 1,648 U.S. adults. The margin of error was 3.3 percent.
