The photograph was fairly grainy and devoid of much colour, but it was enough to make an impact. After the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an aerial view of US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s mansion in Georgetown in Washington, DC, it was capable of being geolocated.
“Iranian threats” against Bessent increased following the WSJ story in January 2025, which led to him being relocated to a United States military base for his safety, an anonymous source close to the matter told the Reuters news agency.
The New York Times first reported the move on Tuesday, citing three sources.
Bessent’s relocation is one of many similar moves made by US officials in recent years. The United Kingdom is also facing security threats it says are tied to Iran.
“I think we are witnessing a deliberate expansion of Iran’s campaign of retaliation beyond the Middle East,” Andreas Krieg, an associate professor of defence studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera.
Bessent has relocated from his Washington, DC mansion to a US military base following alleged Iranian threats to his life.
“The secretary will not be deterred by the Iranian regime’s threats and remains committed to executing Operation Economic Outcast and maintaining the blockade, which together are collapsing Iran’s economy,” a US Treasury spokesperson said in an emailed statement to Reuters.
Of the WSJ report, an anonymous source told Reuters: “The news media has an obligation to act responsibly amid growing threats against public officials.”
Bessent joins at least six other US officials who have left their Washington-area residences for a military base or other protected housing last year, including Stephen Miller , now the White House chief of staff, and Pam Bondi, then the attorney general, the New York Times reported.
Bessent has spearheaded US sanctions and the economic pressure campaign against Iran, dubbed Operation Economic Outcast , since August to coerce Tehran to end attacks on shipping and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The vital waterway has been largely closed since the US and Israel attacked Iran on February 28.
Threats have also been growing in the UK.
On Tuesday, the US military said it moved aircraft from a second airbase in the UK “in the wake of a threat from Iran”, WSJ reported, citing people familiar with the matter.
Two US refuelling tankers and several other tankers that were using the Royal Air Force (RAF) Mildenhall military base in eastern England diverted to Germany and other locations on Monday, the outlet said.
The report comes weeks after five men were arrested outside the RAF Fairford airbase in southwest England over a security incident, with two others arrested later on suspicion of assisting Iranian intelligence.
In September, a British bomb disposal robot roamed the area near RAF Fairford, and 85 homes were evacuated amid fears of an attack.
Days later, the US sent B-1 bombers stationed there, which were used to strike Iran in its ongoing war, back home. About a dozen had been kept at the airbase.
On Wednesday, the US charged three men suspected in the plot to target the airbase. They are accused of acting in support of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Iraq’s Kataib Hezbollah.
While Tehran’s ambassador to the UK denied accusations that it was involved in any scheme against RAF, the IRGC in July had said that Fairford and any other base used to launch attacks against Iran were legitimate targets.
“Tehran increasingly regards American military facilities in Europe as part of the infrastructure sustaining the war against Iran,” said Kreig. “From that standpoint, [British airbases] are not peripheral to the conflict. They are integral to America’s ability to project military power against Iran.”
Analysts have previously told Al Jazeera the withdrawal of the US fleet from the UK reduced Washington’s ability to rapidly generate and sustain bombing missions.
What the episode highlighted, experts said, was the vulnerability of the US’s alliances and overseas basing in the face of potential threats by Iran.
In the US, officials claim that Iran’s ability to carry out large-scale attacks on its territory is limited.
However, last month Reuters reported that a senior intelligence official in the administration of US President Donald Trump warned in a memo that Iranian plots against US personnel and American citizens had reached an advanced stage.
Pointedly, the three men arrested on Tuesday for their alleged involvement in the RAF incident had played a role in nearly 20 attacks across the US and Europe, US prosecutors said.
The alleged assassination attempt against Trump during the campaign trail in 2024 marked another high-profile incident.
Iran rejected accusations that it was trying to kill Trump that year, shortly after a gunman opened fire at a rally in Pennsylvania, killing one person and wounding the then-presidential contender.
Iran has repeatedly denied plotting to attack officials and people on US soil.
While the US and UK do not face the threat of an imminent attack by Iran, Tehran has demonstrated its “considerable reach” through the IRGC, Iraqi militias such as Kataib Hezbollah , and layered networks of local surrogates, argued Krieg.
“But its ability to conduct sophisticated attacks against heavily defended military installations … remains limited,” he said.
Still, Iran does not need sophisticated military capabilities to achieve strategic effects, said the analyst.
“Its intelligence services can mobilise networks of opportunity, involving ideologically motivated individuals, criminals and coincidental surrogates who may be recruited through payments rather than political allegiance,” said Krieg.
“Tehran wants to export the costs of the war to countries supporting Washington,” he explained. “If Iranian threats force American aircraft to disperse, increase security expenditure and generate political anxiety in Britain, Iran has already achieved something without firing a shot.”
So while a devastating military attack is improbable, said Krieg, “relatively modest acts of sabotage, combined with credible threats and psychological pressure, can impose disproportionate costs”.
