America's Global Base Network: Shield, Sword, or Target?

Three American soldiers are dead. The bases the US spent decades building across the Middle East are now absorbing Iranian missiles. And somewhere in Washington, officials are doing the same calculation every administration before them has done: is the network worth the cost?

The strikes by the US and Israel against Iran—and Tehran's retaliation targeting Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, Naval Station Bahrain, Al Dhafra in the UAE, Ali Al-Salem in Kuwait, and Muwaffaq Al-Salti in Jordan—have thrown a spotlight on something most Americans rarely think about: the sheer scale of their country's military footprint abroad. This isn't a new story. It's a 120-year-old one. But it's never felt more consequential.

How It Started: Empire by Accident, Strategy by Design

For most of the 19th century, the US took George Washington's farewell advice seriously: stay out of foreign entanglements. That ended in 1898. Theodore Roosevelt, then a mere Assistant Secretary of the Navy, effectively willed the Spanish-American War into existence, then resigned his post to fight in it personally—commanding the "Rough Riders" cavalry unit he'd founded himself.

The US won decisively. Spain ceded Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. Cuba was occupied, then granted independence in 1902—but the US kept a slice of it. Guantanamo Bay has been in American hands ever since, making it the oldest continuously held US overseas installation. The base has outlasted the Cold War, the War on Terror, and decades of Cuban demands for its return.

The next major expansion came in 1940, when Franklin Roosevelt struck the Destroyers-for-Bases deal with a desperate Britain. In exchange for aging warships, the US gained 99-year leases on British bases across the Western Hemisphere—Newfoundland, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Trinidad, Antigua, and British Guiana. The logic was straightforward: control the Caribbean, protect the Panama Canal, secure the Atlantic approaches. In mid-1941, still officially neutral, the US even took over British occupation of Iceland to keep Nazi submarines out of the North Atlantic.

Then came World War II, and everything changed permanently.

The Cold War Architecture: Boxing In the Bear

The intellectual framework for America's postwar base network came from Nicholas Spykman, a Dutch-American strategist who updated Halford Mackinder's "World Island" theory into something more actionable. Spykman's argument: whoever controls the Rimland—the coastal regions surrounding the Eurasian landmass—can contain any power trying to break out from the interior.

The interior power, of course, was the Soviet Union. The strategy was to ring it with US-aligned bases from Western Europe through the Middle East to East Asia, trapping it as a landlocked power with no path to the open ocean. At its Cold War peak, the US maintained over 1,000 overseas military installations.

These weren't occupations. They operated through Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs)—legal documents specifying the terms of US presence. When agreements expire, the US leaves. It did exactly that in Iraq at the end of 2011. The system has a legal architecture that distinguishes it, at least formally, from colonial occupation.

Sponsored

Advertise with Us

[email protected]

Sponsored

After the Soviet collapse, the US did pull back. The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process from 1988 through the mid-2000s shuttered 424 installations. But 9/11 reversed the trend. Afghanistan and Iraq turned the Middle East into the newest frontier for forward-deployed American power.

Why the Middle East: Oil, Proximity, and the Iran Problem

US strategic interest in the Middle East long predates the Global War on Terror. As long as a significant share of the world's oil flows from the Persian Gulf, uninterrupted transit matters to the American economy and its allies.

The current base architecture reflects that calculus precisely. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar serves as the forward headquarters of US Central Command (CENTCOM), overseeing operations from Egypt to Kazakhstan. Naval Station Bahrain hosts the Fifth Fleet, the naval force responsible for the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. Al Arifjan in Kuwait houses US Army Central.

Proximity still matters in the age of precision weapons. Shorter distances mean aircraft don't need refueling, missiles have less time to be intercepted, and commanders have more options beyond just long-range strikes. The US Navy carriers and destroyers that executed strikes against Iran operated from exactly these forward positions.

But Osama bin Laden cited the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia—home to Islam's two holiest sites—as a central grievance. The bases that project power also generate resentment. And now, they're absorbing retaliatory fire.

Trump's Gamble: Hitting Iran at Its Weakest

The justification from Washington for the Iran strikes rests on a decades-long indictment. Iran has been the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, funding and arming Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, the Assad regime in Syria, and pro-Iranian militias in Iraq. The revolutionary system Ayatollah Khomeini built was explicitly constructed around opposition to the US. Every American president has wanted to neutralize that threat. The risk has always been the same: a protracted conflict with a nation of nearly 90 million people and a substantial military.

The timing of this operation, however, reflects a specific strategic judgment: that Iran is at its weakest point since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Hamas's October 7 attack on Israel triggered a chain of events that severely degraded Iran's regional proxy network—Hezbollah battered, Houthis under sustained pressure, Syrian assets disrupted. Domestically, mass protests erupted in January, met with a violent crackdown that reportedly killed thousands. A regime that needs that level of coercion to maintain control is a regime under strain.

Yet Iran retains a formidable missile arsenal with range covering the entire Middle East. The strikes reportedly killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, family members, senior regime figures, and over 100 civilians—figures that, if confirmed, would represent an extraordinary escalation. Iran's response has already begun. Where it ends is genuinely unknown.

The Base Dilemma: Indispensable and Indefensible

There's an uncomfortable tension at the core of the US overseas base strategy. The same installations that enable power projection become the most obvious targets when that power is used. Military bases are legitimate targets in armed conflict. The three American soldiers killed in Kuwait died at a facility designed to project force—not to absorb it.

No administration is likely to close these bases over small casualty numbers. The strategic value is too high, the sunk costs too deep, and the alternatives too limited. But the equation shifts as conflicts escalate. If Iranian retaliation intensifies, if allied governments hosting US bases face domestic pressure, if the conflict draws in other regional actors—the calculus changes.

The host nations face their own dilemmas. Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Jordan have all now absorbed Iranian strikes on their soil because of US bases they agreed to host. Their populations will have opinions about that. Their governments will have to manage those opinions while maintaining relationships with both Washington and, in some cases, Tehran.

For the broader international community, the question is whether the US base network represents a stabilizing force—deterring aggression through forward presence—or a provocation that generates the very conflicts it's meant to prevent. The answer has never been simple, and this moment doesn't simplify it.