The ongoing military conflict between Iran and the combined forces of the United States and Israel has revived the age-old debate whether the overseas military bases of the United States serve to enhance the security of the United States and its allies or expose them to greater danger.
For several decades, the United States has been relying on its extensive overseas military base network, which serves as a major component of its global security strategy, which developed during the Cold War to counter the perceived and actual threats of adversary countries. Currently, the United States has established approximately 750 military bases in more than 80 countries. As highlighted in several reports published by the Congressional Research Service, the extensive network of military bases in various countries has enabled the United States to undertake military operations quickly and respond to emergencies in various regions.
Nevertheless, the recent military conflict in Iran has posed a strategic conundrum to the United States and other global actors. In the modern age of technology, where accuracy and automation have become key characteristics of weaponry, military bases have become more vulnerable and often force host countries to participate in conflicts that they had not initiated.
A Target in Modern Warfare
The strategic rationale for the presence of overseas military bases has traditionally been deterrence. By placing military assets in close proximity to areas of possible conflict, the United States sends a message to its allies of commitment and to its enemies of the cost of hostilities.
However, recent conflicts have shown that this model may not have the intended effect. Researchers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies have gone so far as to warn that a significant number of U.S. military bases in the Middle East are within range of the increasing capabilities of Iranian missiles. In the event of a major conflict, they become immediate targets.
This is exactly what has happened in the aftermath of the U.S./Israeli missile strikes against Iran. Military bases associated with the U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf region have quickly become immediate targets. Military installations connected to the U.S. presence within the Persian Gulf region have become the primary targets of Iranian missile and drone strikes against various nations including Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. Simultaneously, strikes by Iranian-aligned factions against U.S. military positions within the region, including the areas near Erbil and Baghdad, have also occurred. Even countries not directly involved in the decision to strike Iran have seen their own security situation become more tenuous simply because they host U.S. military personnel.
This is, of course, a classic case of how aggressive actions taken by the major players in a region result in increased insecurity for smaller countries. According to this “host nation dilemma,” countries that host foreign military bases receive some measure of protection from their more powerful ally but at the same time become a target in the event of war.
Regional Fallout
The current conflict also poses a related threat to Gulf economics, which heavily depend on the stability of the energy market and infrastructure. The conflict immediately impacted both, as maritime routes were marked by high tension, premiums for regional transportation were raised, and governmental bodies took action to protect vital energy infrastructure. Also, economic instability arising from confrontations between major world powers heavily affects regional states.
These costs have reignited debates about the long-term costs associated with hosting foreign military forces. This phenomenon is not new, as seen in Iraq, for instance, where the country’s leadership frequently questions whether U.S. military forces enhance the country’s security or complicate regional relationships. Similar debates have taken place in parts of East Asia, where communities near major military bases question the impact on sovereignty, on heightened territorial risk, and on the health and well-being of the population living near the base.
The Iran conflict will likely fuel such debates.
Financial Implications for the United States
From the point of view of the United States, the question is one of strategy and finance. As noted in various financial analyses, the United States spends tens of billions of dollars annually to maintain the global basing structure. Proponents of the strategy assert that the expense is justified by the extent of stability that the strategy affords. Forward deployment capabilities allow the United States to quickly respond to crises and to reassure allied countries that might otherwise feel pressured to develop their own nuclear arsenals or military capabilities.
However, the Iran conflict highlights a major flaw in this rationale. In a war scenario, overseas bases quickly become vulnerable, forcing the United States to spend considerable monies to protect them, which could become increasingly difficult.
For the taxpayer in the United States, the question becomes one of fundamental importance: does the current strategy afford the country the level of security that it claims?
A Topic Worth Examining
military bases continue to offer logistical benefits, political reassurance, and rapid crisis response capabilities. However, the countries that host these bases often become, in effect, participants in the larger theater of operations whenever the United States becomes involved in armed conflict, regardless of their voluntary consent.
This recognition may lead governments in different regions of the world, from the Middle East to East Asia, to reassess the potential risks and benefits of hosting foreign military forces. This was demonstrated in the 2024 referendum in Ecuador that rejected future U.S. bases, the current parliamentary debate in Iraq on U.S. troop presence, and local opposition in Okinawa, Japan, to the expansion of a U.S. Marine base. If this trend continues, the United States may face pressure to reassess its global military presence.
For the United States, the vulnerability of overseas bases presents an opportunity: to update an outdated strategic approach to the exigencies of the modern world. In an environment in which rapid technological advancements in military capabilities are possible, as well as rapid escalation of conflicts, the overriding goal is obvious: to maintain U.S. security, maintain allied support, and prevent the inadvertent transformation of those states into front lines. Achieving this goal may require the reduction of U.S. overseas military footprint.
A forward-thinking strategy should also prioritize flexibility, speed of operation, and both political and technological flexibility. It is only through such an approach that the United States can hope to achieve effective deterrence without succumbing to the dangers of static deployments in such high-risk environments.