Strikes targeting US military bases across the region during the war with Iran have reignited debate within Israeli military circles over their strategic value. The discussion centres on whether these bases remain a security asset or have evolved into a growing liability.
According to Yoel Guzansky of the Institute for National Security Studies, the war has revived a longstanding regional question about the role of US military presence. He notes that this debate has intensified across Gulf states, where some voices now argue that hosting US bases no longer guarantees strategic advantage. Instead, it has exposed these countries to direct targeting by Iran, which justified its strikes on the basis of their hosting US infrastructure, while their actual defence relied primarily on domestically operated systems.
Gulf States: Between Protection and Exposure
In an analysis published by Channel 12, Guzansky highlights that most of the defensive systems used during the conflict were American-made, with Israeli systems also contributing to the defence of the UAE. During the latest escalation, Iran targeted the network of US bases across the Gulf, including sites in Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the UAE, aiming to disrupt the infrastructure that enables Washington to project power in the region.
This dynamic exposes a structural dilemma. While US bases are intended to provide security guarantees, they simultaneously transform host nations into frontline targets during regional conflicts.
Strategic Necessity or Strategic Risk?
Despite these concerns, Guzansky cautions against prematurely concluding that US bases have lost their strategic relevance. Since Britain’s withdrawal from the region, US military presence has formed a cornerstone of Gulf security architecture, positioned as a means of maintaining regional balance, securing energy routes, and reinforcing deterrence, historically against Iraq and now against Iran.
At the same time, the occupation is reportedly considering requesting an expanded US military presence on its own territory, including the potential establishment of additional facilities. While such a move could strengthen deterrence and deepen ties with Washington, it also introduces similar risks faced by Gulf states, namely becoming a direct target for adversaries.
Operational Constraints and Strategic Trade-offs
Permanent US military presence can also impose operational limitations. Conducting military operations in areas where US forces are stationed often requires tighter coordination with Washington, which may restrict independent decision-making.
The core challenge, therefore, is not a binary choice between hosting or rejecting US bases, but managing the balance between the deterrence they provide and the degree of strategic autonomy they constrain.
The Regional Equation Without US Bases
The question of what the region would look like without US bases remains unresolved. Guzansky suggests that their absence could create a strategic vacuum in the Gulf, potentially granting Iran greater freedom of movement, expanding its influence, and increasing its capacity to apply both military and political pressure.
A Persistent Strategic Dilemma
Ultimately, both the occupation and Gulf states face a complex equation. US bases expose them to risks in conflicts where they may not be direct participants, yet they remain a central pillar of deterrence and regional stability. This tension places them between strategic cost and security gain, with no clear resolution in sight.
