作者： admin

For weeks, public attention has centered on the U.S. use of RAF Fairford in southwest England’s Gloucestershire as a launchpad for bombing missions targeting Iran. Now, a new high-stakes incident has pulled a lesser-known British military installation into the geopolitical crossfire: RAF Lakenheath, a large U.S. Air Force base in eastern England’s Suffolk county.

On Friday, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced its air defense systems had intercepted and shot down an American F-35 fighter jet operating over central Iran, claiming the aircraft belonged to a squadron permanently based at RAF Lakenheath. While U.S. military officials later confirmed to media outlets that an American warplane had indeed been downed in Iranian airspace, they corrected the aircraft type, stating it was an F-15E Strike Eagle rather than the stealth fifth-generation F-35. The UK Ministry of Defense has declined all requests for comment from Middle East Eye on the incident and Lakenheath’s operational role.

This is not the first time Iranian officials have claimed a U.S. jet shootdown: in late March, Tehran’s claim of downing an F-35 was immediately denied by Washington. Following Friday’s announcement, Tasnim News Agency, an Iranian outlet with close official ties to the IRGC, published purported photos of the downed aircraft’s wreckage. According to the IRGC, a visible “LN” tail code on the debris confirms the jet was part of the 493rd Fighter Squadron under the 48th Fighter Wing, the permanent U.S. Air Force unit stationed at Lakenheath.

To understand Lakenheath’s role in ongoing U.S. military operations against Iran, it is critical to outline the base’s status. The installation remains property of the UK Ministry of Defense but is leased long-term to the U.S. Air Force, and it hosts the largest American fighter operations on the European continent, centered on the 48th Fighter Wing. Recent weeks have seen a clear and unusual buildup of U.S. air power at the base: five F-35C stealth fighters were spotted landing at Lakenheath on March 24, followed Monday evening by a formation of 12 A-10C Thunderbolt II attack aircraft, commonly nicknamed the “Warthog” for its rugged design. The Warthog is purpose-built as a close air support and “tank buster” platform, and regional military sources report these aircraft have already been used to strike Iranian fast-attack craft and minelaying vessels operating near Iran’s coastline. The U.S. military has refused to confirm or deny these operational reports.

Local anti-war activists monitoring the base added to the picture of heightened activity, stating that on the morning of April 2, they observed more than 20 military aircraft depart Lakenheath in a coordinated launch. A second Suffolk-based base, RAF Mildenhall, which supports global U.S. Air Force logistics and operations, has also seen a sharp spike in activity over the past week. On March 31, two U.S. EA-37B Compass Call electronic warfare aircraft, designed to disrupt enemy communications and air defenses, were photographed landing at Mildenhall.

The growing U.S. use of British bases has come alongside a series of policy shifts from the UK government under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and growing retaliatory threats from Tehran. In an interview with Times Radio Wednesday, Iranian Ambassador to London Seyed Ali Mousavi confirmed that Tehran is actively evaluating whether to launch retaliatory strikes against British military bases in response to their role in U.S. operations against Iran.

When the U.S.-led campaign against Iran first began, the UK initially blocked American use of the joint UK-U.S. base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean for strike missions. That position changed within 48 hours, when Starmer announced the U.S. would be permitted to use British bases for bomber strikes targeting Iranian missile sites, framing the decision as a purely defensive measure. Two weeks later, Starmer executed a second policy U-turn, approving U.S. use of British bases for broader strikes on Iranian targets to protect commercial shipping transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

Despite Starmer’s repeated concessions to support U.S. military goals, former President and current U.S. leader Donald Trump has repeatedly launched public attacks against the Prime Minister, even going so far as to suggest the decades-long “special relationship” between the two countries is in serious jeopardy.

On Thursday, UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper convened a summit of more than 40 nations in London to coordinate a unified international response to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints. Before the IRGC effectively closed the corridor in early March, roughly 20% of the world’s global oil supply transited the strait annually. Following the summit, Cooper stated that the assembled nations would “comprehensively reject” any attempt by Iran to charge commercial vessels fees for passage through the waterway. She added that Iran must “not be allowed” to “hold the global economy hostage” and confirmed that participating nations had discussed the implementation of new, targeted sanctions intended to pressure Tehran to reverse course.

In a response released Thursday afternoon, Iran’s foreign ministry announced it is working alongside Oman — which declined to attend the London summit — to draft a proposal for a post-war permit system for commercial vessels transiting the strait.

This report was published by Middle East Eye, a media outlet focused on independent, in-depth coverage of the Middle East, North Africa and surrounding regions.

More than 100 American legal scholars and practicing legal professionals have signed an open letter arguing that the military campaign against Iran launched jointly by former U.S. President Donald Trump and Israel violates core tenets of international law, with multiple military operations rising to the level of potential war crimes. The letter asserts that the campaign was unlawful from its very commencement on February 28.

“From its initiation, this military offensive stands as a clear violation of the United Nations Charter,” the document reads. “The actions of U.S. armed forces since the campaign began, paired with public remarks from senior U.S. government officials, raise urgent, credible concerns about breaches of international human rights law and international humanitarian law — including the commission of potential war crimes.”

While the letter centers its criticism on the actions of the U.S. government, it also joins in condemning two distinct sets of unlawful actions: the Iranian government’s violent suppression of internal domestic dissent, and Tehran’s continued unpermitted strikes on civilian infrastructure using explosive ordnance in heavily populated civilian areas.

The signatories emphasize the foundational importance of the principle that international law must apply equally to all nations, regardless of their global power and influence. They reject the rhetorical framing used by senior U.S. officials that seeks to minimize the importance of international laws governing armed conflict, calling this language “profoundly alarming and dangerously short-sighted.”

“These claims, particularly when paired with the on-the-ground conduct of U.S. military forces, are eroding the international legal order that our professional lives have been dedicated to building and protecting,” the letter adds.

The open letter also outlines the far-reaching human and economic costs of the ongoing campaign: it notes the operation has drained between $1 billion and $2 billion from U.S. taxpayers every single day, while inflicting catastrophic harm on Iranian civilians and regional stability across the Middle East. Thousands of civilian lives have been lost, the letter says, while regional ecosystems and national economies have been left severely damaged.

The legal experts level two core layers of criticism: they challenge both the inherent illegality of the decision to launch the war, and the potentially unlawful conduct of military operations throughout the campaign. First, the group reaffirms a position widely held by legal experts since the offensive began: the attack cannot be justified under the international legal framework governing the right to self-defense.

“The use of military force against a sovereign state is only permitted in two circumstances: an act of self-defense in response to an actual or imminent armed attack, or explicit authorization from the United Nations Security Council,” the signatories explain. “The Security Council never granted authorization for this attack. Iran never launched an armed attack against either the United States or Israel.” They add that no credible evidence exists to demonstrate that Iran posed an imminent armed threat that would legally justify a pre-emptive self-defense claim.

Beyond the question of the war’s legality at inception, the letter documents multiple alleged violations of the laws of armed conflict. These include U.S. strikes targeting civilian individuals and infrastructure, among them non-military Iranian politicians, critical energy facilities, and civilian desalination plants that supply drinking water to Iranian communities.

The letter cites data compiled by the Iranian Red Crescent documenting strikes on more than 67,000 civilian sites across Iran between February 28 and March 23. That tally includes 498 damaged or destroyed schools and 236 health care facilities. The data also confirms that at least 1,443 Iranian civilians have been killed in the joint strikes, including 217 children.

Of particular note is the February strike on a primary school in the Iranian city of Minab, which killed at least 175 people, the vast majority of whom were young schoolgirls. The letter concludes this strike “likely violates international humanitarian law,” adding that “if evidence confirms that those responsible for the strike acted with reckless disregard for civilian life, it may also qualify as a war crime.” While the Trump administration has denied U.S. involvement in the attack, a preliminary U.S. government investigation has already confirmed that U.S. military forces carried out the strike, and that the school was targeted based on out-of-date intelligence.

The legal experts also draw attention to inflammatory public remarks made by U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, including his statement that “We will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies.” Under both U.S. military law and longstanding international military law, declaring that no quarter will be given — a policy that means refusing to spare the lives of combatants who have surrendered — is explicitly prohibited. The signatories note that ordering or threatening a policy of no quarter is explicitly classified as a war crime under international criminal law.

The letter also denounces additional remarks from Hegseth, who has publicly stated the U.S. military does not abide by “stupid rules of engagement,” as well as a comment Trump made in January stating “I don’t need international law.” The experts add that repeated threats from Trump to attack Iranian energy infrastructure would also qualify as war crimes if carried out.

Under international law, deliberate strikes on civilian energy infrastructure are strictly prohibited, the letter explains. If an energy facility serves both civilian and military purposes, it can only be classified as a legitimate military target if it makes an “effective contribution to military action” and an attack on it would deliver a “definite military advantage.” Regardless of classification, all strikes must adhere to the international legal principles of proportionality and precaution to avoid unnecessary civilian harm.

The experts also issue a special warning about potential strikes on Iranian nuclear power plants, noting that such facilities require extraordinary care due to the catastrophic risk that a breach could release radioactive material, endangering the lives of millions of civilians across the region.

Beyond individual strikes and public statements, the legal experts raise broader concerns about policy changes pushed by Hegseth since he took office as U.S. Secretary of Defense that are designed to weaken U.S. compliance with international law. Under his leadership, the letter says, multiple senior military legal advisors have been fired, and the judge advocates-general of the Army, Navy and Air Force have all been replaced. This systemic shakeup has gutted independent legal oversight of U.S. military operations, the experts argue.

Additionally, Hegseth’s 2026 U.S. National Defense Strategy removes all explicit references to civilian protection and adherence to international law. “We are gravely concerned that the conduct and threats outlined here are causing serious harm to civilians in the Middle East, and that they also contribute to escalating the conflict, damaging the environment and the global economy, and that they risk degrading the rule of law and fundamental norms that protect every nation’s civilians,” the letter states.

“Public statements by senior officials indicate an alarming disrespect for the rules of international humanitarian law accepted by states, and which protect both civilians and members of the armed forces,” the authors continue. In closing, the group issued a formal call to action: “We urge U.S. government officials to uphold the UN Charter, international humanitarian law, and human rights law at all times, and to publicly make clear U.S. commitment to and respect for norms of international law.”

For decades, Vietnam’s public stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been rooted in anti-imperialist solidarity forged by its founding father Ho Chi Minh. Today, that long-standing commitment is colliding with a dramatic shift in Hanoi’s geopolitical and economic priorities, as the Southeast Asian nation builds increasingly close military and trade relations with Israel – creating a visible tension that divides even Vietnamese public discourse.

Vietnam’s support for Palestinian self-determination traces back to the Cold War era, when both Hanoi and the Palestinian national liberation movement positioned themselves at the forefront of global anti-colonial and Third World liberation struggles. In 1968, Hanoi formalized ties with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and a year later Ho Chi Minh issued a forceful public condemnation of Israeli aggression, reaffirming unwavering backing for the Palestinian people’s struggle. This solidarity extended far beyond rhetoric: Yasser Arafat, the iconic PLO leader, openly drew inspiration from Vietnam’s revolutionary victory against Western powers, dispatching groups of Palestinian fighters to Hanoi to study the guerrilla warfare tactics that brought victory over French and U.S. forces. For Vietnam, this alliance also carried strategic value: aligning with the Palestinian cause cemented the country’s reputation as a leading voice of anti-imperialism and boosted its standing within the Non-Aligned Movement, according to Carlyle Thayer, emeritus professor at the University of New South Wales and a veteran expert on Vietnamese defence policy. Even in the wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and Israel’s subsequent military campaign in Gaza, Hanoi has stuck to its long-standing positions: it has repeatedly affirmed support for a two-state solution, voted in favor of United Nations resolutions condemning Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, and repeatedly called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

But Vietnam’s relationship with Israel has evolved dramatically over the past three decades, transforming from distant diplomatic outreach to robust, multi-faceted cooperation rooted in shared strategic interests. Curiously, the two countries’ earliest interactions date back to 1946, when Ho Chi Minh held a brief meeting with David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s future founding prime minister, in Paris, and even floated the idea of hosting a Jewish government-in-exile headquarters in Hanoi. As Zionism evolved into a settler-colonial project, however, Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese nationalist movement quickly distanced themselves from Ben-Gurion’s agenda. Full formal diplomatic ties were only established in 1993, and meaningful military cooperation did not emerge until the 2010s, when Hanoi began seeking to diversify its arms suppliers away from its long-time top provider Russia.

Since that shift, Israeli defence exports to Vietnam have grown exponentially. Today, Israel ranks as Vietnam’s second-largest defence supplier, trailing only Russia, and Vietnam has become one of the top five importers of Israeli arms globally since 2015, according to the Database of Israeli Military and Security Export (DIMSE). Hanoi has acquired a wide range of advanced Israeli military systems in recent years, including Spyder air defence batteries, Heron surveillance drones, and Galil ACE assault rifles produced at a $100 million Israeli-owned manufacturing facility opened in 2011. Most recently, in late January 2026, Vietnam’s defence ministry is reported to have signed a $250 million contract with Israeli state-owned defence giant Rafael Advanced Defence Systems to acquire and locally produce the Spike Firefly loitering munition, also called the “Maoz” suicide drone. While Hanoi has not officially confirmed the deal, Vietnamese state media has already published pieces praising the weapon’s battlefield performance in Gaza – where Rafael has deployed the system to test its capabilities, and has used its operational success in marketing materials to arms buyers around the world, including Vietnam. In 2025, Hanoi finalized a $680 million deal to purchase two spy satellites from Israel Aerospace Industries, marking another major milestone in defence cooperation.

For Vietnam, Israeli arms hold unique strategic advantages that set them apart from alternative suppliers. Unlike Western weapons, Israeli military sales rarely come with binding political caveats that limit how the systems can be used, and they frequently include generous technology transfer provisions that allow Vietnam to build and modify weapons domestically. Unlike Soviet-designed arms, which Vietnam’s primary potential strategic rival China knows intimately, Israeli systems provide Hanoi with a technological edge in regional disputes. Already, Israeli-made EXTRA coastal rocket launchers have reportedly been deployed to Vietnamese bases in the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, according to open-source weapons trackers.

Defence cooperation is not the only area of growing ties: bilateral economic relations have expanded rapidly in recent years. A bilateral free trade agreement between Hanoi and Tel Aviv entered into force after October 2023, pushing total two-way trade to $3.75 billion in 2025. In January 2026, Israeli airline Arkia launched direct commercial flights between Tel Aviv and Hanoi – a connection that could also carry strategic defence benefits, Thayer notes, allowing for rapid shipment of sensitive small defence components between the two countries.

This shift toward closer ties with Israel aligns with Hanoi’s modern “bamboo diplomacy” doctrine, a foreign policy framework that prioritizes flexibility, pragmatism, and the advancement of core national interests over ideological alignment. However, the growing defence relationship has sparked criticism from within Vietnam, with many observers arguing that it represents a betrayal of the country’s revolutionary commitment to Palestinian liberation.

“The Vietnamese state has betrayed a lot of its revolutionary promises in order to chart a more neoliberal relationship,” explained Evyn Le Espiritu Gandhi, an associate professor at UCLA who studies Vietnamese transnational solidarity movements. Since the Doi Moi economic reforms of the 1980s, which shifted Vietnam from a centrally planned economy to a socialist-oriented market system, economic growth has replaced revolutionary ideology as the primary source of legitimacy for the ruling Communist Party, a shift that has reshaped all areas of foreign policy.

A grassroots pro-Palestine movement has emerged online among Vietnamese youth, operating within the constraints of the country’s tightly controlled civic space. The movement’s core work centers on filling information gaps about the Gaza conflict left by state-aligned mainstream media, and it has gained significant traction on social media platforms. For many young Vietnamese activists, the contradiction between Hanoi’s rhetorical support for Palestine and its deepening military ties to Israel is impossible to ignore. “For me, nationalism is heritage, the memory that we inherit,” one prominent activist with more than 20,000 Facebook followers told Middle East Eye. “But to some, nationalism is development, economy, national defence, regardless of the sacrifice of our anti-colonial history.”

From the perspective of Hanoi’s pragmatic bamboo diplomacy, there is no inherent contradiction in this balancing act, Thayer argues. “The approach is dialectical,” he explained. Vietnam is willing to defend Palestinian sovereignty on the global stage as long as doing so does not conflict with its core economic and security interests. This flexible, interest-driven approach has guided Hanoi’s recent participation in other high-profile global initiatives, including its decision to quickly join the founding membership of U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace”, with Communist Party chief To Lam traveling to the U.S. in February 2026 to attend the group’s first meeting and pledging increased purchases of American goods to strengthen bilateral ties.

Now, as the United States and Israel expand conflict into Iran, Vietnam’s decades-long pursuit of steady economic growth is increasingly colliding with the anti-imperialist legacy that once defined the country’s global identity – leaving Hanoi to navigate a precarious balancing act between its history and its current ambitions.