From the UK to the Gulf, are US overseas bases becoming liabilities? | US-Israel war on Iran News
DOHA, QATAR — In March 1999, a United States B-52 bomber departed from RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, marking the commencement of the US-led NATO bombing campaign in Yugoslavia. This British base played a critical role as a launch site and fuel station for American jets, a function it repeated during the Gulf War in 1991, the Iraq War in 2003, and the early phase of the US-Israeli conflict with Iran that began on February 28, 2026.
However, following escalating tensions, the United States withdrew all 12 of its B-1 Lancer bombers from the Gloucestershire base in October over safety concerns related to Iranian threats. British authorities had recently arrested several individuals suspected of plotting attacks against the base, a claim Iran has denied.
The concerns surrounding RAF Fairford are part of a broader trend. Earlier this month, the US relocated a dozen aircraft from RAF Mildenhall, and in July, various military assets were moved from Gulf bases that faced significant threats during the ongoing war, with some being reassigned to Jordan and discussions ongoing about relocating to Israel.
For decades, American military bases have enabled the United States to project power and provide security to allies across Europe and the Gulf. Yet, increased Iranian capabilities to damage US facilities from the Middle East have now transformed these strategic assets into potential liabilities, analysts warn.
“The US security umbrella is becoming a double-edged sword,” said Simon Mabon, professor of international politics at Lancaster University. “When the security of US bases is called into question, it alters Washington’s assessment of their strategic value, prompting European and Gulf states to reconsider hosting arrangements since these bases may now also pose risks to them.”
How the Iran War Changed the Bargain
The presence of American military bases has long been viewed as essential for allied defense against external threats. Previous US administrations, through commitments to Gulf security, have fostered a sense of reliance among allies, perceived as a protective guarantee against aggression.
Recent incidents related to the war on Iran, however, have sparked new debates over the efficacy and safety of such arrangements. The US has charged three men, allegedly Iranian-backed operatives, with plotting nearly 20 attacks across the United States and Europe, including possible attacks on RAF Fairford.
In the Gulf, Iran has cited the presence of US forces as justification for targeting neighboring nations, with attacks directed at Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait, despite the latter not hosting permanent US bases.
A Pentagon report released in September listed extensive damage to American facilities throughout the region during the first four months of the war, illuminating the precarious security situation for US military assets.
These vulnerabilities are causing host countries to reevaluate the associated risks of harboring US facilities, especially as they become potential targets in a conflict not of their choosing.
The US Calculations
Washington faces a complex situation. While military bases in Europe and the Middle East extend US operational reach, their presence also makes them susceptible to Iranian attacks.
Recent strikes on various installations—from a hangar at a British base in Cyprus to a communications center at the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain—underscore the precariousness of these military outposts. In many instances, attacks on key bases have left them nearly incapacitated, raising concerns regarding their future operational viability.
Experts are increasingly highlighting the altered security dynamics, emphasizing that while hosting US forces can provide some measure of defense, it also exposes these nations to retaliatory strikes.
Reasons Bases Are Harder to Defend
Mark Hilborne, a lecturer at King’s College London, notes that the evolution of warfare has made large bases more vulnerable to attack. Advances in drone technology have significantly changed the tactical landscape, enabling adversaries to strike targets at lower costs and with increased precision.
Iran’s investment in affordable drone technology exemplifies this trend, allowing the nation to leverage low-cost attacks against larger, high-value US installations. Furthermore, the emergence of non-state actors increases the complexity of threats to these bases.
Urban Coningham, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, articulates that the nature of threats has evolved, prompting a reassessment of risk management for military installations. “The proliferation of drone technology means that smaller actors can pose considerable challenges,” he said.
A Policy Conundrum
As the United States shifts some military resources out of Gulf and European locations, analysts suggest that Washington could increasingly rely on Israel as a forward base in the region. Israel’s role as a key ally and participant in the Iran conflict portrays a significant shift in US military strategy.
The ongoing volatility places US troop presence under scrutiny, raising questions about the necessity and safety of maintaining such bases in the region. Experts argue that a long-term strategy must involve preparing allies to maintain their own defenses independently.
“There is an internal debate within US policy circles that acknowledges the reality US forces face as targets,” Coningham remarked. “The challenge remains that the US sees few viable alternatives to maintaining its base presence in the region.”
