The power of journalism or just a coincidence - did the Financial Times kick American planes out of "Bezmer"? The American KC-135 tanker aircraft have already left the "Bezmer" airbase. This happened days after the Financial Times published information that Iranian forces were considering possible strikes against American military assets in Southeast Europe, including Bulgaria. Defense Minister Dimitar Stoyanov said that the planes left the country on Friday and that Bulgarian institutions acted in coordination with the American government. However, it has not been announced that the withdrawal is a direct consequence of the publication or the Iranian threat.
And this is where the bigger question begins.
Because The Financial Times did not report that Iran had decided to attack Bulgaria. The publication, citing two sources close to the Iranian leadership, claims that Iranian forces have considered options for strikes against American assets in Southeast Europe in the event of a new escalation of the conflict. Among the countries mentioned is Bulgaria, and the context is precisely the use of the “Bezmer“ by American tanker aircraft.
This is an important difference. It is one thing for a country to be declared an immediate target. It is quite another for the enemy military to begin considering its territory as a possible point of attack on American assets.
But the fact remains: Bulgaria appeared in a similar scenario.
And since the American planes are already out of the country, the question must be asked what this short story actually showed. First of all - that a seemingly logistical military activity can very quickly acquire geopolitical significance. KC-135s are not combat planes in the classical sense. They are tanker planes designed to refuel other planes in the air. That is why Bulgaria emphasized that no direct combat operations against Iran would be carried out from its territory.
However, for the enemy, the logic may be different.
The tanker plane is part of the military machine. Without aerial refueling, a number of long-distance air operations are significantly more difficult. Therefore, a country can legally define a given activity as logistical, while a potential adversary sees it as part of the military infrastructure that supports its adversary.
This is precisely the big lesson from “Bezmer“. Bulgaria was ready to provide its military infrastructure to its strategic ally, the United States. But then the inevitable question arose: who protects this infrastructure if it is perceived as a potential target? This is not an academic question.
The power of journalism was seen after the Financial Times publication, because Bulgaria strengthened security measures around “Bezmer“, and NATO stated that it is ready to take the necessary measures to protect its allies.
But the reaction itself shows something else - when a specific threat appears, we start thinking about protecting a base that we only days earlier provided for use by the American armed forces.
And here we must now look to our neighbors.
Greece, for example, reacted extremely sharply when security in the region was threatened - we are referring to Cyprus. Turkey is also strengthening its air and missile defense. These countries have their own strategic interests and immediate geographical proximity to the conflict zone. Bulgaria is in a different position. We are close enough to be affected by the escalation of the conflict, but far enough not to be automatically involved in every specific episode. That is why a possible Iranian attack on Bulgarian territory would be particularly interesting from a strategic point of view. What would happen if Tehran did not decide to undertake a large-scale strike, but simply wants to test NATO's reaction?
This is the most uncomfortable scenario.
A limited strike or even an attempted strike against an American asset could pose the Alliance with the question of whether and how to react. Will the attack be seen as an attack on Bulgaria? Will it be seen as an attack on American assets on Bulgarian territory? How will Washington react? How will European allies react? And most of all - how quickly can Bulgaria defend its own airspace?
These are questions that must be resolved before, not after... And here we return to the most essential part of the story with the American KC-135.
If Bulgaria is ready to provide its territory and infrastructure to its strategic partner, it is logical to expect from it not only the use of this infrastructure, but also participation in its defense.
This does not necessarily mean an American Patriot on “Bezmer“. It means a pre-planned defense system – radars, early warning, air defense systems, anti-drone capabilities, fighters and a clear procedure of who commands and who reacts to a threat.
And one more thing. It is not enough for Bulgaria to rely on Turkey or Greece to guard its skies if the situation becomes dangerous.
Yes, allied solidarity is one of the foundations of NATO. But allied solidarity should not be a substitute for national capabilities.
Because otherwise a strange paradox arises.
Bulgaria may be important enough to provide its military infrastructure for American operations, but insufficiently prepared to guarantee the protection of this infrastructure itself.
And here the withdrawal of the KC-135 from “Bezmer“ has symbolic significance.
It shows how quickly a situation that began as a purely logistical arrangement between allies can turn into a diplomatic and military problem. Bulgaria allowed the temporary deployment of American aircraft, Iran reacted sharply, and later the Financial Times reported that Iranian forces had considered possible strikes against American assets in the region. The aircraft then left Bulgaria.
Again - we cannot say that the latter is a direct consequence of the former. But the sequence of events is indicative enough.
And it poses a bigger question for Bulgaria than whether Iran would actually fire at “Bezmer“.
The question is whether Sofia has a clear strategy for what it does when it becomes part of foreign military logistics, and this logistics begins to be perceived as a potential target. Because alliance does not mean simply providing a base. It means knowing what comes next if this base is put under threat.
The Financial Times did not prove that Iran will attack Bulgaria. And no one should turn such information into a reason for panic. But the publication showed the weak point that is usually visible only when a crisis begins: where does allied solidarity end and where does our own responsibility for security begin?
The American planes are now outside the “Bezmer“.
But the question that remains after them is much more important: if Bulgaria again makes its territory available for an allied military operation tomorrow, will it also request in advance the necessary capabilities with which to protect its own skies?
Because security is not just about having allies.
Security is also about knowing what you can do yourself until they arrive.