Illustrative image. (U.S. Central Command)
The United States military used a B-1 strategic bomber on July 21 to strike Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) targets in Iran, American officials told Axios on July 23.
The strike marked a significant escalation of the U.S. campaign, the first bomber mission since fighting with Iran resumed earlier in the month. The B-1 carries the largest bomb load of any aircraft in the U.S. fleet, capable of carrying up to two dozen heavy bombs or dozens of cruise missiles, and can fly faster than sound at low altitude.
The IRGC confirmed Axios’s report. In a statement, the Corps said U.S. forces had opened the renewed hostilities by firing cruise missiles from naval vessels in the Indian Ocean.
American forces then turned to B-1 bombers once those missile stocks ran low, the Corps said, describing the aircraft as flying out of RAF Fairford in the United Kingdom.
Restating a long-held position, the Corps warned that any base used to facilitate attacks on Iranian territory would be treated as a legitimate target.
It closed with a pointed warning to the UK, calling London a historical source of regional misfortune. It cited what it described as a record of dividing Islamic countries, mass killings, installing authoritarian governments, and enabling the occupation of Palestine.
The UK, the Corps said, should not add to that bad record by joining the U.S. and Israeli campaign against the Islamic Republic.
From its side, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said Britain’s decision to let the U.S. use its bases and logistics to strike Iranian territory violated the UN Charter and international law. It warned that any state assisting such action would bear responsibility for the consequences.
Citing Article 3(f) of UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 — which defines aggression to include letting one state’s territory be used to attack another — the ministry called Britain’s move itself “an act of aggression.”
British officials, it said, knew full well that the U.S. campaign, carried out with Israel’s participation, amounted to a “blatant act of aggression,” and that assisting it would “constitute complicity in the crime of aggression and war crimes.”
The ministry also faulted Britain, a permanent UN Security Council member, for siding with what it called the aggressor states rather than condemning the strikes. It said the decision undercut London’s professed commitment to the rule of law, human rights, and international peace and security.
It’s worth noting that just a day earlier Bloomberg reported that new British Prime Minister Andy Burnham had authorized the U.S. to use certain UK bases for operations against Iran.
All UK bases in the Middle East are within the range of Iranian fire, and it is widely suspected that the Islamic Republic could even have the means to reach British military facilities beyond the region. Considering this, an Iranian response should be expected shortly.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence
NOW hosted at southfront.press
Previously, SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence was at southfront.org.
The .org domain name had been blocked by the US (NATO) (https://southfront.press/southfront-org-blocked-by-u-s-controlled-global-internet-supervisor/) globally, outlawed and without any explanation
Back before that, from 2013 to 2015, SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence was at southfront.com
