China Signals Threat To U.S. Bases With Drone Incursions

Checklist: explain why Operation Epic Fury matters; outline China’s stake in Iran’s energy; report Gordon Chang’s warnings about drone flights; assess the likelihood of direct Chinese or Russian attacks; argue why the U.S. should stay the course.

Operation Epic Fury, the campaign aimed at rolling back Iran’s nuclear ambitions, has shown early tactical success and strong coordination with Israeli partners. The campaign’s gains are notable partly because Iran has operated largely without outside military intervention, isolating Tehran as it faces sustained pressure. That isolation reflects decades of antagonism between Iran’s theocracy and many Western-aligned states. Still, the conflict now triggers strategic worries about how other major powers might react.

One key variable is Iran’s vast energy wealth, which directly benefits China through long-term oil and gas ties. Beijing has invested deeply in Iranian energy infrastructure and sees the region through the lens of supply security and economic leverage. That commercial relationship complicates the strategic picture and raises the possibility that China might take measures to protect its interests. Those measures could be economic, diplomatic, or, in the view of some analysts, more coercive.

China expert Gordon Chang told Fox Business that recent drone activity over U.S. bases is a warning sign and should not be dismissed. “The important point here is that we have had, last month, over four of our important military bases, foreign drones. These drones were large, they were un-hackable, they obviously were not recreational, so some foreign power — probably China, maybe Russia — was operating drones over our critical air force bases,” Chang said on “Mornings with Maria.” “Really, right now, the United States needs to be able to defend its bases in the homeland because those drone flights were a warning to the United States of some sort,” he continued.

Those drone flights fit a pattern: probing, intelligence-gathering, and testing U.S. reactions. We have seen multiple incursions and suspicious activity in recent months, sometimes with personnel of concern tied to foreign networks. Intelligence collection aimed at bases and infrastructure is classic behavior by states seeking to understand vulnerabilities before taking bigger steps. For defenders, the message is clear: harden and monitor.

Chang also warned that Beijing’s actions should be viewed in the context of its growing alignment with other U.S. adversaries like Russia and Iran, as tensions continue to spill across multiple global fronts.

“China is supporting Russia in Ukraine, and China is supporting Russia in other matters as well… So they have a durable partnership, and anything that helps one of them is going to generally help the other, with the exception of the matter that you just raised,” he said, referring to the tension between higher oil prices benefiting Russia while raising costs for China.

“Generally speaking, the United States now faces a very powerful combination, and we shouldn’t be doing anything that fuels that combination,” he added.

That analysis points to a durable Sino-Russian axis of convenience that complicates U.S. strategy. Both Beijing and Moscow have reasons to exploit any American overreach or distraction, and supporting Iran indirectly helps them shape outcomes in Eurasia and the Middle East. Still, direct intervention on behalf of Tehran would be a serious escalation that carries huge risks for China and Russia. Practical support like logistics, technology transfers, or covert assistance is more plausible than open military intervention against the United States.

History and recent behavior suggest China would prefer deniable measures that fall short of a kinetic strike on American soil. Supplying drones, spare parts, or intelligence assistance lets Beijing influence the conflict while preserving plausible deniability. Russia likewise moves in gray zones to advance interests without triggering a direct confrontation that could spiral into full-scale conflict. Those patterns mean policymakers must watch for asymmetric threats rather than expect conventional invasions.

Still, strategic caution should not become paralysis. The primary purpose of the current campaign—degrading Iran’s nuclear programs—remains a clear and achievable objective. The United States can and should protect homeland bases while maintaining focus on neutralizing nuclear threats abroad. Defensive upgrades, better counter-UAS measures, and sharper intelligence work are essential, but they do not require abandoning the mission that matters most.

Editor’s Note: For decades, former presidents have been all talk and no action. Now, Donald Trump is eliminating the threat from Iran once and for all.