Should the U.S. Rebuild Its Military Base in the Gulf? A Dilemma for America

Xinhua News Agency, Beijing, August 24 - The conflict between the United States and Iran has dragged on for nearly six months, with Iran launching counterattacks on multiple U.S. military bases in the Gulf region, forcing the U.S. to reconsider whether rebuilding the attacked bases is "worth it." According to a report by the Financial Times on the 23rd, the U.S. is in a dilemma regarding the rebuilding issue: if they rebuild, it will require tens of billions of dollars and contradict the current trend of flexible and decentralized military deployments; if they do not rebuild, reducing their footprint in the Middle East will inevitably lead to dissatisfaction among regional allies, and the U.S. military will be left with a "hasty retreat" image.

Worrisome Prospects for Bases

According to the Financial Times, for nearly 40 years, the U.S. military presence in the Middle East has been supported by a network of military bases along the Gulf coast, but the prospects for these bases have been overshadowed as some have been attacked during the U.S.-Iran conflict.

First, rebuilding the bases requires "spending money." An estimate released by the American Enterprise Institute in April indicated that 11 U.S. military bases across seven countries in the Middle East were damaged during the conflict, with repair costs totaling $5 billion. This is not a small amount compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars the U.S. has invested in the conflict with Iran.

Second, to "counter advanced adversaries," existing U.S. military bases in the Gulf are increasingly "losing favor." The report points out that decision-makers at the U.S. Department of Defense are becoming less optimistic about using large, fixed bases as centers for military operations and logistics, and are instead leaning towards a more decentralized deployment model, making it difficult for adversaries to strike U.S. forces.

Third, some bases have suffered severe damage to ground facilities, making reconstruction difficult. Iran has bombed U.S. military bases' hangars, supply and radar infrastructure, and command and control nodes, leading the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet to temporarily use a base on Diego Garcia Island, thousands of kilometers away from Iran, as a supply hub due to severe damage to its command center in Bahrain.

Hal Brands, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, stated that U.S. military bases in the Gulf, especially large bases, are "very vulnerable." He believes the U.S. will adjust its military deployment in the region, moving bases "beyond the range of Iran's short-range missiles and drones."

Iran Adapts

To avoid falling within the range of Iran's short-range missiles, the U.S. military has transferred some personnel and aircraft to countries like Israel and Jordan over the past few months, and has also utilized military bases in some European countries to launch aircraft and drones.

Since the outbreak of the conflict with Iran, several U.S. soldiers have been killed, and over 200 U.S. military facilities have been damaged or destroyed. The U.S. military has also expended a large number of advanced air defense interceptors, with various missile stockpiles running low.

On the Iranian side, there is a belief that a prolonged military conflict with the U.S. has become increasingly inevitable, and they have long been "making preparations." According to a report by the Financial Times on the 19th, insiders within the Iranian government warned that if a new round of full-scale conflict breaks out between the U.S. and Iran, Iran will expand the battlefield, targeting "further objectives," including U.S. military facilities in Bulgaria and other Southeast European countries.

Dani Zitrenovitz, an analyst on Iranian affairs who previously worked for Israeli military intelligence, speculated that Iran may develop more medium-range missiles "capable of reaching Israel or Jordan."

Allies Question Commitments

The Financial Times analysis pointed out that even if the U.S. adjusts its military deployment in the Gulf region, it should consider the feelings of its Middle Eastern allies. For decades, the "oil for security" agreements between the U.S. and its Middle Eastern allies have evolved, and some Gulf countries no longer fully trust the U.S., seeking to establish defense relationships with other countries and striving to reduce their dependence on U.S. defense. The U.S.-Iran conflict has forced all allies to reflect on what the U.S. security commitment really means.

Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan signed a joint defense agreement earlier this month. Analysts pointed out that in the context of the spillover effects of the Iran conflict, some countries have found the U.S. to be "unreliable," and are therefore seeking to strengthen security cooperation among themselves and attempt to establish a regional collective security mechanism.

Former U.S. Department of Defense official Dana Stroul, who was responsible for Middle Eastern affairs, believes that the U.S. needs to strike a "delicate balance" between military operational needs and security commitments to its Middle Eastern allies, and needs to assess the situation of military assets and troop deployments "to ensure the security of Gulf countries."

However, both Stroul and Brands believe that the U.S. may find it difficult to shake off the negative labels of "abandoning allies" and "hasty retreat" that its Middle Eastern allies have attached to it. (Wang Yijun)