Iran war shows perils of America's Mideast bases

U.S. military bases in the Middle East have served as a key launchpad for American attacks on Iran. But they’ve also served as a vulnerable target for retaliation. In less than two weeks, the Iranian military has fired thousands of missiles and drones at these bases, killing seven U.S. soldiers and wounding at least 140 more.

So it is that America’s war of choice in Iran has exposed the dangers and futility of U.S. overseas bases. In order to minimize the risk of future wars and reduce the threat faced by allies and partners, the United States should learn from this war and begin shuttering these outposts.

The post-Cold War logic of maintaining Washington’s overseas bases relied on two premises. The first was that hosting these bases would be a source of security, shielding allies and partners from foreign attack through U.S. deterrence. The second was that, by investing in such a shared and long-term military infrastructure, the bond between host countries and Washington would be deepened and strengthened.

In just a few days, the hollowness of both premises has been put on full display.

Though it was Israeli bellicosity that led to the initial bombing of Iran, it is the United States’ Gulf partners that have borne the brunt of retaliatory strikes because of the presence of multiple military facilities. Similarly, less prominent deployments in Jordan and a lingering U.S. presence in Iraq have drawn Iranian strikes as well.

In many ways, America’s basing strategy has been on auto-pilot since the end of the Cold War. In 1991, building on the success of Operation Desert Storm, the United States quickly sought to press its geopolitical advantage by developing a network of complementary military installations across the southern shore of the Persian Gulf.

The Gulf monarchies, aware of their own military weaknesses, sought U.S. protection from potential aggression in order to prevent a repeat of Iraq’s invasion and annexation of Kuwait or a possible Iranian attack. While the countries, with the exception of Kuwait, were initially hesitant about a permanent and large-scale U.S. military presence, Washington’s persistent desire for a global footprint led to a vast base system across the region.

The Global War on Terror increased the Gulf’s importance for the Pentagon, and states in the region came to see hosting U.S. troops as a relatively easy way to strengthen relations with Washington while continuing to counterbalance Iran. Cognizant of Trump’s highly personalist approach to foreign policy, Gulf leaders have sought to either maintain or enlarge U.S. military presence in a bid to remain in the president’s good graces. A similar logic appears to have led the Qataris to gift Trump a plane, while the Emiratis bought a large stake in a Trump family crypto company and the Saudis invested in Jared Kushner’s private equity firm.

For most of the past thirty years, the financial costs and security risks of hosting U.S. bases appeared to be relatively small compared to the perceived benefits of American protection. But the downsides of these bases had already started to come into focus before the current war. Last year’s Israeli bombing of Hamas negotiators in Doha, for example, demonstrated that the Al Udeid airbase’s 10,000 U.S. personnel could not deter attack from a U.S. ally, let alone an adversary.

Ultimately, American bases have proven to be a source of insecurity for Gulf countries. U.S. military presence in the region has made it too easy for an American administration to go to war, thereby dragging the rest of the region into conflict. U.S.-Israeli unilateralism has turned the Gulf littoral into a frontline, with local leaders having little say in the matter.

The sprawling nature of U.S. bases has made it harder for both the installations and host nations to be effectively defended from retaliatory strikes. The Iranian response has managed to turn large-scale U.S. military presence from a perceived strength into a dangerous liability for Middle Eastern states. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has begun moving its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system from South Korea to the Middle East in order to repel incoming strikes, which further erodes the credibility of Washington’s global alliance system by reducing its ability to protect allies in East Asia.

In order to create security for the Middle East, reduce the risk of the United States going to war, and prevent the waste of military resources, both the United States and its partners should initiate the process of closing these bases.

The good news is that, despite the Trump administration’s proclivity for global military adventurism, Washington has continued to show some openness to troop withdrawals. The United States has been pulling forces out of Syria since 2025, and it hopes to complete a withdrawal from Iraq by September, according to a U.S. official who spoke with RS in January. Late last year, the U.S. also reduced its deployment to Romania.

One of the major barriers to a more comprehensive reduction is Congress, which as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 legislated that the United States must maintain at least 76,000 troops in Europe, not significantly lower than the 85,000 deployed there. We can expect similar reticence in Congress toward any effort to bring troops home from the Middle East.

This makes it more important for U.S. allies to take the initiative.

During the Greenland crisis earlier this year, some European diplomats reportedly floated the possibility of closing U.S. bases. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s signing of a mutual defense treaty with Pakistan in September 2025 suggests that the United States is not viewed as the sole potential source for security. The closure of U.S. overseas bases can also pave the way for better intraregional relations, whether between Europe and Russia or Iran and its Arab neighbors.

If the true goal of these bases is to provide security for others, then they have failed spectacularly. It is time to make America’s partners safer by reducing the U.S. military footprint abroad.