On 17th July 2026 the Bulgarian government took the decision to allow the
deployment of 8 US tanker KC-135 aircraft and a staff of 250 people at Bezmer airbase near
Yambol. Earlier this year, 15 of the same planes were deployed at Sofia international airbase for
a couple of months. According to a US official statement, the planes are there to support military
operations in the Middle East – and to be more specific – the war against Iran.
Bulgarian authorities stated that “Bulgaria does not take part in the conflict” and only carries out
its duties as an ally and member of NATO. Those words “does not take part in the conflict”
astonished me. I recalled the start of the war in Ukraine in 2022, when Western countries
sanctioned Belarus for allowing a Russian offensive to be launched from its territory. At that
time, Belarus was clearly designated – in accordance with international law – as a party
complicit in the conflict. So, why was Belarus declared a participant in the conflict, whereas
Bulgaria – by making its airspace available to aerial refueling tankers – is not? Yes, aerial
refueling tankers are unarmed, but their function is to support combat aircraft. Thanks to them,
combat aircraft can undertake much longer missions without the need for redeployment. In other
words, by agreeing to host even unarmed aircraft, Bulgaria is supporting US military operations
regarding Iran; following this logic—and international instruments—Bulgaria is effectively a party
to the conflict. It is merely a disingenuous diplomatic approach that prevents the authorities from
calling things by their true names—and this is not just a local distortion, but a widely accepted
practice.

Iran sent a diplomatic note. Bulgarian authorities praised it as “professionally drafted” (the
Iranian Foreign Ministry can pat themselves on the back). Meanwhile, the US stated that it
would protect Bulgaria from potential attacks. The likelihood of a strike by Iran is low—there are
far more attractive targets for Iranian missiles in the immediate vicinity—but that is not the point.
Are our authorities prepared to shoulder such responsibility should something happen? They
talk the talk, but do they walk the walk? Are they simply banking on luck? Or perhaps on
Bulgaria’s outdated air defense system? Or do they sleep soundly, believing that NATO allies
will protect us—and that there will be no attempts at hybrid sabotage attacks? These are not
baseless speculations, given the official warning; a risk clearly exists, however small it may
seem to some.

And does Iran have the ability to strike? Often in recent years, the US has fought with poorly
armed paramilitary formations, whose capabilities for striking could hardly threaten US allies in
Europe. In this conflict, the situation is not like that. Perhaps, readers in recent months have
become convinced of the fact that Iran, despite long-standing economic sanctions, is one of the
countries with a well-developed military industry. Evidence of this is the strikes on military
facilities of the US, Israel and their allies in the region. These strikes turned out to be
unexpected in their number and accuracy and made the US rethink its strategy in waging the
conflict. Iran has a large assortment of drones (e.g., Shahed-136), tactical, cruise and ballistic
missiles. The solid-fuelled medium-range ballistic missile, Sejjil, has a maximum range of 2000
km, which also covers Bulgaria. This is Iran’s practical ability to hit American aircraft in the
Yambol region.

Why are we risking the lives of Yambol citizens and what does the deployment of American
aviation in our country help? So that the Bulgarian worker can also give his bit in the geopolitical
struggles of the USA. But is there a need? He has given enough in Afghanistan and Iraq, and
gives every day with his taxes. What he will gain here is only complicity in murders. And no one
needs that. Right?