US Overseas Bases: From Strategic Assets to Vulnerable Liabilities Amidst Growing Threats?

From RAF Fairford in the UK to bases across the Gulf, the strategic utility of United States military installations abroad is facing unprecedented scrutiny. Once pivotal launchpads and fuel stations for American power projection, these bases are increasingly perceived as potential liabilities due to escalating threats, particularly from Iran.

The historical significance of bases like RAF Fairford is undeniable. In March 1999, it served as a crucial staging ground for the US-led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. It played similar roles during the 1991 Gulf War and the initial stages of the US-Israeli war on Iran, which commenced on February 28, 2026. However, recent events have cast a shadow over their security. In October, the US withdrew all 12 of its B-1 Lancer bombers from Fairford, citing fears of an escalating Iranian threat. British security forces had made several arrests, with the UK government accusing Iran of orchestrating a plot to target the base, a charge Tehran denies.

RAF Fairford is not an isolated case. Earlier in the month, the US relocated a dozen aircraft from RAF Mildenhall. Reports from July indicated that the US had moved significant military assets from its Gulf bases, which had been heavily impacted by Iranian attacks during the war, to bases in Jordan, with Israel also being considered as a potential relocation site.

For decades, these overseas bases have been instrumental in the US military's ability to project power globally and have served as security guarantors for allies in Europe and the Gulf. However, Iran's demonstrated capability to inflict substantial damage on US facilities in the Middle East and pose a threat as far as the UK has fundamentally altered this dynamic. Analysts suggest that these critical strategic assets have now become potential liabilities for both American allies and the US itself.

"The US security umbrella is becoming a double-edged sword," stated Simon Mabon, a professor of international politics at Lancaster University. "When the security of US bases is called into question, it changes Washington’s calculation of their strategic benefits. It also gives European and Gulf states reason to think seriously about the bases, given that they are becoming targets."

The war on Iran has significantly reshaped the security bargain for US allies. Hosting American bases has long been viewed as a key deterrent against regional threats. Former US President Barack Obama emphasized an "ironclad commitment" to Gulf security, while Britain has consistently highlighted its "special relationship" with the United States. This partnership, historically framed by the US as a benevolent guarantor of allied security, is now being tested by a series of security incidents linked to the war on Iran.

US prosecutors have charged three individuals described as Iranian-backed operatives in connection with plots targeting nearly 20 locations across the US and Europe, including RAF Fairford. In the Gulf, Iran explicitly cited the presence of US bases as justification for its attacks on Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait. Iran also targeted Oman, which lacks a permanent US base, as well as Jordan and Iraq, both of which host major US military facilities.

A Pentagon watchdog report released in September detailed that Iranian attacks had damaged or destroyed hundreds of buildings and structures at US military installations across Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, and Jordan within the first four months of the war. Notably, at least five KC-135 aerial refuelling tankers were damaged at Prince Sultan airbase in Saudi Arabia, and an airborne early-warning and control aircraft was hit on the ground in a subsequent strike.

These incidents highlight a growing security dilemma for US allies in the Gulf and Europe. While hosting US forces offers defense, it also exposes host nations to retaliation in conflicts they may not have initiated. The war has also disrupted vital oil and gas exports, crucial for the region's economies. Despite US President Donald Trump's recent statement that further military action against Iran is not currently necessary, the US naval blockade remains, impacting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

"The vulnerability of these assets is increasingly front-of-mind for host governments, who have not sought war, yet have been drawn into it without having had any real say," noted Mohammad Ali Shabani, a Middle East analyst. "The perception among Gulf Arab states is certainly shifting."

The US faces its own strategic quandation. While bases in Europe and the Middle East provide essential reach for distant conflicts, they also present Iran with numerous targets. In March, an Iranian drone struck a hangar at a British base in Cyprus used by the US for intelligence and logistics. Tehran also threatened Bulgaria after reports emerged of the US using its Bezmer airbase for refueling operations related to attacks on Iran. Subsequently, Bulgaria's defence minister confirmed the departure of US air tankers, with the country's president declaring the "mission is over."

In the Middle East, several key US bases have been severely impacted. Kuwaiti bases, in particular, have suffered heavy damage, including an attack on the Port of Shuaiba that resulted in the deaths of six US service members and the destruction of an army operations center. Strikes on Ali Al Salem airbase damaged aviation facilities and injured personnel, while attacks on Camp Buehring damaged maintenance and refuelling facilities. In Qatar, an Iranian strike compromised the early warning radar system at Al Udeid airbase, which hosts the headquarters for US Central Command’s (CENTCOM) air operations. In Bahrain, an Iranian drone struck communications equipment at the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet.

These damages raise critical questions about the continued usability of these bases under attack. Gerd Nonneman, a professor of international relations and Gulf studies at Georgetown University in Qatar, observed that the war has demonstrated that some bases are "themselves very vulnerable" and "unable to fulfil many of the tasks they were established for."

The increasing vulnerability of large bases is attributed to advancements in technology, particularly the proliferation of relatively inexpensive ballistic missiles and drones. Iran has significantly invested in developing its own drone capabilities, which can inflict disproportionate damage and overwhelm more expensive interceptor systems. In the UK, drones present distinct challenges. While the specific threat to RAF Mildenhall remains unclear, the Fairford incident involved an alleged plot. "The range of actors who might target bases has changed," explained Urban Coningham, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). "Bases are more vulnerable, and that changes the risk calculation. Anyone can manufacture a drone in a basement… People looking to create mischief or mayhem can recruit organised criminals, making attacks harder to attribute." This evolving threat landscape makes bases more susceptible to attack, thereby altering the risk-benefit analysis for their continued operation.

As Washington considers relocating some military assets from the Gulf and Europe, there is a potential for increased reliance on Israel, its closest Middle East ally. Shabani noted that "there are already signs that CENTCOM is moving towards using Israel as a key forward base." Israel, alongside the US, initiated the war on Iran in February. While maintaining US forces in proximity allows for rapid response to threats against oil and gas exports, it also exposes these forces to Iranian attacks.

Coningham suggests a long-term solution involves strengthening allied forces' self-defense capabilities. "There is a debate within the US policy establishment, and the Iranians are referencing it and saying that as long as US forces are there, they are a target," he stated. "That is the policy conundrum for the US. Ultimately, they can’t see any alternative to having bases in some form."