Iran would strike US bases in Europe and on distant islands if the United States attacks again, the country’s top security official said, warning countries that host American forces that any base involved in an attack would become a target.
“If the Americans make a mistake and attack us, we will not limit ourselves to nearby bases,” Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, told the Beirut-based channel Al Mayadeen, which is aligned with Hezbollah and Tehran.
“We may even target some American military bases in European countries.”
Iran might also hit “some islands they think our missiles cannot reach,” he said, and he advised every country that hosts US forces not to cooperate with an attack. “Wherever American planes take off from, we will regard it as a threat against us.”
Rezaei also said Vladimir Putin had told him, when they met in the Kremlin, that he had informed the Americans that the Islamic Republic “is not a system that can be toppled.”
The threat marks another step up in what Tehran says it is prepared to hit. In the 12-day war of June 2025, Rezaei said, Iran limited its strikes to Israel. In the war that began on February 28 it fired on US bases across the region. Now its officials name Europe.
Last month, Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei ordered the armed forces to prepare for retaliation without geographic limits, according to a statement attributed to him. The army’s spokesman said a new war could spread “beyond West Asia,” and the hardline daily Kayhan listed US and NATO facilities in Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Albania, Italy and Britain, and the joint US-British base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
Whether Iran can reach them is less clear. The Center for Strategic and International Studies lists Iran’s main ballistic missiles with ranges of about 2,000 kilometers, with some variants reaching perhaps 3,000. Britain’s Royal United Services Institute has said a strike as far as the UK is theoretically possible, with smaller and less accurate warheads flying through defended airspace.
The warning comes days after the US military moved tankers and aircraft out of RAF Mildenhall in eastern England over a threat from Iran, and weeks after it withdrew bombers from RAF Fairford following a suspected Iran-linked plot.
Rezaei denied that Tehran was talking to Washington, contradicting reports this week of progress in Qatari mediation.
“We are not negotiating with the Americans at present, and there are no negotiations between us and the United States,” he said.
Reports of a meeting in Qatar, or of plans for him to meet Vice President JD Vance, were “lies,” he said, meant to ease economic pressure and bring down oil prices. Asked directly about a meeting with Vance, he said: “Absolutely not.”
Iran has set seven conditions, he said, and the Strait of Hormuz will stay closed until they are met. Washington’s first reply had been “deceptive.” The first condition is an end to the war on all fronts, especially Lebanon.
He said the nuclear issue was not on the table, and that “not even a particle” of Iran’s enriched uranium would leave the country. Tehran had told Moscow the same, he said, adding that Iran was designing nuclear-powered ships and submarines and might build small modular reactors, and needed the material for them.
Rezaei also said both sides had signed an agreement during an earlier round of talks in Islamabad, and that Trump had torn it up within a month. Washington has not confirmed that account.
Rezaei said Iran had recently taken control of US drones in flight through electronic warfare and brought seven down intact, and had captured two underwater craft able to dive to 6,000 meters. He gave no details, and none of the claims could be independently verified.
Asked about the health of Mojtaba Khamenei, who has not appeared in public since succeeding his father in March, Rezaei did not answer directly.
He said that when they last met, and he prayed behind him, he found him better informed about the country “even than me,” and that he issues instructions to military commanders.
Rezaei said he had carried a message from Mojtaba Khamenei to Putin, mostly on continuing cooperation, and that they had discussed the North-South trade corridor and piping Russian gas, no longer sold to Europe, into Iran for its own use and resale to its neighbors.
The Revolutionary Guards' unveiling of a new underground missile facility has sparked public anger over military spending, with citizens questioning government priorities amid growing poverty, energy shortages and a lack of civilian shelters.
Iranian media released images on November 10 showing Ali Abdollahi, chief of staff of the armed forces, and Majid Mousavi, commander of the Revolutionary Guards' Aerospace Force, touring what was described as a new underground "missile city."
Neither the facility's location nor the date of the officials' visit was disclosed.
"They have drilled holes into mountains for missile cities, but they have left even bigger holes in people's dinner tables," a resident of Shiraz wrote to Iran International.
Another criticized the focus on expanding missile capabilities rather than addressing economic hardship.
"They either inaugurate missile cities or compete to threaten the region, Europe and the US. The only thing that does not matter to them is the people and their problems," the person wrote.
The unveiling followed remarks by lawmaker Ghasem Ravanbakhsh on November 7 calling for longer-range missiles and discussing the potential ability to target military bases and infrastructure in European countries, including Britain.
Missile facilities and shrinking household budgets
Several citizens questioned the allocation of resources to underground military infrastructure while living standards continue to deteriorate.
"Now we know where the money meant for people's livelihoods is being spent," one person wrote.
Another compared Iran's growing missile infrastructure and the Revolutionary Guards' influence to North Korea, pointing to declining household purchasing power and economic hardship.
Year-on-year inflation reached 88.7 percent in October, the Statistical Center of Iran announced on October 28.
"Regional power and strength are not demonstrated by unveiling missile cities, but by providing people with essential goods and fuel so they do not face shortages," another wrote.
Others questioned the construction and operating costs of underground facilities, including their electricity and gas consumption.
One person estimated construction costs at $50 million per kilometer and questioned why households were being urged to conserve energy while military facilities consumed substantial resources.
The criticism coincided with fresh government warnings about possible winter gas shortages.
Iran faces a gas supply shortfall of approximately 430 million cubic meters, government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani said on November 10, warning of possible interruptions and urging households to reduce consumption.
Some respondents also accused the Revolutionary Guards of controlling access to foreign currency and import permits through affiliated companies, arguing that resources needed for food and medicine were being directed toward missile development and regional allied groups.
Underground missile bases but no public shelters
Another major concern raised by the citizens was the lack of civilian shelters and emergency protection facilities in the event of war.
"I wish that instead of unveiling missile cities, you would unveil underground shelters for the people. Everything matters to the Islamic Republic except the lives of Iranians," a resident of Karaj wrote.
The criticism follows an Iran International report published on November 3 examining civilian preparedness for possible conflict.
Many said they could neither afford emergency supplies nor identify a safe place to shelter during military strikes.
Some also questioned the government's decision to publicize images of facilities presumed to be sensitive military sites while providing no recent images of Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei.
They contrasted the publicity surrounding underground missile infrastructure with the continued absence of new public images of the country's leader.
Iran designated Argentina’s navy and air force as terrorist organizations on Wednesday, invoking a 2019 law on reciprocal action after Buenos Aires designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) as a terrorist organization.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry said Argentina’s move was hostile and violated fundamental principles of international law. It said the 2019 law, adopted after the United States designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization, applies to countries that follow or support that US decision.
“All countries that in any way follow or support the US decision to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization will be subject to reciprocal action,” the ministry quoted the law as saying.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry said the Argentine government would bear responsibility for “all consequences arising from this action.”
Argentina designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization on March 31, broadening a years-long effort by Buenos Aires to hold Tehran and its proxies responsible for the deadliest attacks in the country’s history.
President Javier Milei’s office said Argentina had added the IRGC to its public registry of individuals and entities linked to terrorism and its financing, a move that allows financial sanctions and operational restrictions.
The United States was the first to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization, adding it to its Foreign Terrorist Organizations list in 2019. Canada listed the entire corps as a terrorist entity under its Criminal Code in 2024. The European Union also added it to its terrorist list in February 2026.
Other governments have used different legal categories. Australia listed the IRGC as a “state sponsor of terrorism” in November 2025, while Britain designated it as a threat to national security in July 2026 under its State Threats Act.
Argentina tied its decision directly to the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, which killed 29 people and wounded more than 200, and the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center, which killed 85 people and wounded more than 300.
The announcement also renewed attention on Ahmad Vahidi, the IRGC chief commander and former Iranian defense minister, who has long been sought by Argentine authorities over the AMIA case.
At the time, Vahidi was the head of the Quds Force, the external operations branch of Iran's sprawling paramilitary organization the Islamic Revolutionary Guards.
Following an international arrest warrant issued by Argentine judicial authorities in 2006, Interpol placed him on its wanted list the following year.
The US Treasury Department confirmed on Tuesday that Secretary Scott Bessent had relocated from his Washington home to a military base following threats against his life from Iran.
"Threats against Sec. Bessent reached more than an advanced stage, which is why he and his family made the move," a senior Trump administration official told Fox News Digital.
The New York Times first reported the relocation, citing three people familiar with the matter. Reuters subsequently confirmed the move through two sources, while Fox News Digital obtained confirmation from the Treasury Department.
Security concerns intensified after photo of residence published
A person familiar with the matter told Reuters that concerns about Bessent's safety intensified after The Wall Street Journal published an aerial photograph of his residence in Washington's Georgetown neighborhood.
The photograph made it possible to identify the property's location, the source said, heightening security concerns amid the threats attributed to Iran.
"The news media has an obligation to act responsibly amid growing threats against public officials," the person told Reuters.
The military base where Bessent and his family relocated has not been publicly identified.
Treasury says Bessent will not be deterred
A senior administration official told Fox News Digital that the threats reflected the effectiveness of Washington's economic pressure campaign against Tehran, arguing that Iran was targeting the official responsible for the strategy.
A Treasury spokesperson told Fox News Digital that Bessent would "not be deterred by the Iranian regime's threats."
Bessent has overseen Operation Economic Outcast since August, a campaign combining financial sanctions and restrictions on trade to pressure Tehran over its military activities and the disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
US intelligence warns Iranian plots have advanced
The reported threats follow a warning from a senior US intelligence official that Iranian plots targeting American personnel and citizens had reached an advanced stage.
Reuters said it reviewed a memorandum containing the warning late last month.
The New York Times also reported that US officials had identified specific threats they considered serious.
The newspaper said US officials assessed Iran's ability to carry out large-scale attacks in the United States and other overseas locations as limited.
Iran has previously denied involvement in plots to attack officials or other individuals on American soil.
Bessent oversees US blockade and sanctions on Iran
The Treasury Department's economic pressure campaign has targeted Middle Eastern bank branches and financial services companies that Washington says facilitate transactions involving Iran.
The measures operate alongside a US naval blockade of Iranian ports, intended to restrict Tehran's oil revenue and pressure it to halt attacks on commercial shipping and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
The waterway, a major route for global energy exports, has faced severe disruptions since the United States and Israel launched their military campaign against Iran on February 28.
Washington has also expanded its efforts beyond maritime routes. On November 7, US Central Command announced Task Force Iron Gate, a new initiative to disrupt shipments of advanced weapons, dual-use technologies and sanctioned materials across Iran's land borders and the Caspian Sea.
US President Donald Trump says the Iran war is effectively over militarily, but his plan to maintain a naval blockade raises questions about how long the standoff can last and whether it serves the interests of the Arab neighbors he says support it.
“Most importantly, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and others would prefer the status quo, that we remain as is,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday after meeting Qatar’s prime minister.
He described that approach as continuing the US naval blockade, while keeping American forces ready for renewed military action.
Speaking to reporters in Paris after meetings with G7 counterparts on Tuesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said US sanctions and the naval blockade were inflicting growing economic damage on Iran, reducing the need for further major combat operations.
Regional analysts disagree over whether that policy offers Arab states across the Persian Gulf their safest option or prolongs a confrontation that threatens their security and economies.
Pressure without stability
Ghaith al-Omari, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute and former executive director of the American Task Force on Palestine, offered the opposite assessment to Trump’s. Regional governments want a weaker Islamic Republic, he said, but that does not mean they favor an indefinite blockade.
“They would like to see the regime weakened, but they don't believe that the blockade serves their interests,” he told Iran International.
Even where oil continues to flow, insurance costs and the risk of further attacks weigh on regional economies. Prolonged uncertainty also threatens the stability underpinning investment, tourism, finance and logistics, he said.
“No war, no peace equals uncertainty, equals instability,” al-Omari said.
He argued that Arab governments across the Persian Gulf doubt Washington’s willingness to sustain the policy.Trump’s midterm setback has intensified concerns that domestic pressure could prompt an abrupt change, leaving neighboring countries to manage the consequences.
Without an agreement reopening the Strait of Hormuz and ending the conflict, some governments could seek separate arrangements with Tehran to reduce their exposure, he said.
Between a rock and a hard place
Dalia Ziada of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) described the Arab states of the Persian Gulf as caught “between a rock and a hard place”: fearful of a resurgent Islamic Republic, yet harmed by the instability of a prolonged standoff.
“They don't want the Iranian regime to get strong again,” she told Iran International.
But continued insecurity carries its own economic consequences, threatening the region’s appeal to investors and confidence in its future.
“The biggest loss for the wealthy Gulf states is the lack of stability,” Ziada said.
She argued that differences among regional governments, combined with doubts about the reliability of American protection, complicate their choices. Their concerns cannot be reduced to a simple preference for war or continued restraint, she said.
One incident could break the standoff
Mohamed Fahmy, a journalist and Middle East political analyst, also sees significant differences among Iran’s Arab neighbors.
“There is no unified Gulf position on how long the blockade should continue,” he told Iran International.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE see value in maintaining American pressure until Tehran makes meaningful concessions, Fahmy said, while Qatar and Oman place greater emphasis on mediation.
Their shared interest in reducing the Iranian military threat does not eliminate the costs of prolonged confrontation.
“The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have invested heavily in presenting themselves as stable international hubs for business, tourism, finance and logistics. Prolonged confrontation threatens those ambitions,” he said.
Those concerns reflect damage already sustained. An October 15 Reuters investigation documented at least 135 missile and drone attacks by Iran and allied groups against at least 84 infrastructure sites across seven Arab countries since US-Israeli attacks on Iran began on February 28. The tally covered infrastructure attacks, rather than every launch or attempted strike.
Fahmy said the standoff could continue for some time because Washington and Tehran both appear to believe waiting will improve their negotiating positions. But an attack killing American personnel or seriously damaging Persian Gulf energy infrastructure could trigger renewed military action.
“It takes only one serious incident involving American forces, a commercial tanker or a Gulf energy installation to undermine the current restraint,” he said.
Growing pressure in Washington over financial costs, military commitments and the absence of a clear exit strategy could instead encourage a negotiated settlement, he argued.
The case for staying the course
Saad bin Tefla Al-Ajmi, Kuwait’s former information minister, argues that maintaining the status quo remains the least harmful choice.
“The solution is to keep the status quo as is. That’s the best solution,” he told Iran International, referring to an article he supplied outlining his position.
Renewed war could bring further Iranian attacks on neighboring countries, he argues, while American withdrawal could leave them exposed.
“The third option is the safest and best for us, for the region and for the beleaguered peoples of Iran,” he wrote in the article.
Al-Ajmi advocates sustained naval and economic pressure alongside efforts to constrain Tehran’s regional armed allies. He predicts that pressure could eventually bring down the regime, although that outcome remains uncertain.
He acknowledges the costs to neighboring states.
“The Gulf states are indeed paying a price under this scenario. Their trade is disrupted, tensions persist in their airspace and their projects are delayed,” he wrote.
His support for maintaining that pressure rests on the judgment that the alternatives would be worse. The question is whether Washington and its regional partners can sustain it without an escalation that forces them back into war.
An alleged IRGC operative helped coordinate a plot to attack RAF Fairford, a British airbase housing US forces, from a New York jail using coded messages sent through his family, according to a US indictment unveiled Tuesday.
The eight-count indictment charges three men with terrorism-related offenses over their alleged support for the IRGC and Kataib Hezbollah, an Iran-aligned Iraqi militia, and their involvement in nearly 20 attacks and attempted attacks across Europe and the United States, including a September plot targeting RAF Fairford in southwestern England.
The Justice Department identified the defendants as Mohammad Baqer Saad Dawood al-Saadi, a dual Iranian-Iraqi national; Mohsen Mohajeri, an Iranian national; and Mohammed Ali al-Hassani, an Iraqi national.
Al-Saadi, arrested abroad in May and transferred to US custody, allegedly used calls with his mother and sister in Iraq to relay coded messages to Mohajeri and al-Hassani, who were in Iran during preparations for the Fairford plot.
During a September 24 call, prosecutors said, al-Saadi asked about al-Hassani, whom he called “Ali,” and instructed his relatives to “give him money so we can do it.”
Two days later, three vans were driven toward RAF Fairford as part of the alleged plot.
From coded messages to a British airbase
According to prosecutors, al-Hassani began organizing the operation in August, paying an associate to survey RAF Fairford and film its perimeter while arranging vehicles, fuel and other materials.
The preparations included obtaining vans and barrels of fuel, researching chemical accelerants and purchasing metal objects that could be used as explosive shrapnel, the indictment said.
The vans were disguised as fuel delivery and swimming pool supply vehicles.
On September 26, al-Hassani allegedly directed three vans toward the base, maintaining frequent contact with their drivers. At least two encountered a security roadblock and were prevented from continuing along their intended routes.
British authorities recovered three white vans and arrested their occupants early the following morning.
The incident triggered a major security operation around RAF Fairford, including the temporary evacuation of nearby residents.
British counterterrorism police subsequently said they had recovered petrol from the vehicles but found no improvised explosive devices. Five men initially arrested near the base were released on police bail as the investigation continued.
The suspected plot prompted the United States to withdraw bombers from Fairford, a base used by American aircraft during strikes on Iran.
Trump said on October 5 that the bombers had been moved because of security threats, adding that those responsible “would be linked to Iran.”
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi rejected the allegations in a September 30 post on X, pointing to the suspects' release on bail and telling Britain: “You're barking up the wrong tree.”
British Prime Minister Andy Burnham subsequently told parliament that the suspected operation was highly likely to have been coordinated in Iran and almost certainly directed by the IRGC.
In an October 12 joint statement, more than 30 countries, including the United States, acknowledged Britain's attribution of the Fairford incident to Iran and condemned Tehran's alleged use of covert networks and proxy actors.
On October 27, British prosecutors charged two men under national security legislation in connection with the Fairford incident.
A wider network of attacks
The US indictment links the three defendants to approximately 18 attacks claimed by a group calling itself Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya, or HAYI, across Europe in the spring of 2026.
Prosecutors described HAYI as a front for Kataib Hezbollah and other US-designated terrorist organizations.
About seven of the attacks took place in Britain, including incidents involving arson, explosives and a near-fatal stabbing of two Jewish men in London, one of whom held dual US-British citizenship.
The indictment alleges that Mohajeri and al-Hassani discussed plans for attacks while together in Iraq in early April, with a map of London displayed on a computer screen.
“We need to get focused on London,” Mohajeri allegedly told al-Hassani in a recorded conversation.
During an April 17 arson attack on a Jewish charity in London, the three defendants allegedly directed the perpetrator in real time through FaceTime while recording the incident.
The following day, al-Hassani allegedly directed another individual during an attack on a London synagogue, instructing the person to “light it up like a Christmas tree” before an improvised explosive device was thrown at the building.
Al-Saadi was separately accused of attempting to arrange an attack on a synagogue in Manhattan during March and April.
Fresh security concerns at another US airbase
The indictment emerged as US military aircraft were moved from a second British airbase amid reports of another threat linked to Iran.
Reuters reported Tuesday that at least 10 American KC-135 refueling aircraft departed RAF Mildenhall in eastern England on Monday, while at least three Osprey aircraft were moved to nearby RAF Lakenheath.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the movements followed a threat from Iran, although the precise nature of that threat remained unclear.
The Journal said security at Mildenhall and Lakenheath had been raised to FPCON Charlie, the second-highest threat level, while Britain maintained that its military bases remained secure.
No publicly disclosed evidence has established a connection between the reported threat at Mildenhall and the three defendants named in Tuesday's indictment.
The three men face charges including conspiracy to provide material support to designated terrorist organizations, terrorism financing and conspiracy to bomb a public place.
Al-Saadi, 32, remains in US federal custody. The charges are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
