The Pentagon is examining whether to reduce or reposition U.S. forces at Persian Gulf installations after Iranian missile and drone attacks damaged or destroyed more than 200 American facilities and exposed the vulnerability of longstanding basing arrangements across the region.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The Pentagon is considering a potentially significant reshaping of the U.S. military footprint in the Middle East, including moving personnel away from some Persian Gulf bases that have proven vulnerable to Iranian missile and drone attacks during the nearly six-month war.
The review is being conducted by the Pentagon’s policy office with participation from the Joint Staff and U.S. Central Command, according to The Washington Post.
No formal force-posture review has been ordered by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, but one senior Pentagon official described the effort as “prudent planning” intended to inform future decisions about which damaged facilities should be rebuilt and where American forces should be stationed.
“Decisions are going to have to be made on some of this stuff,” the official told the Post.
The question has become more urgent after months of Iranian attacks damaged or destroyed more than 200 U.S. facilities throughout the region.
Six American service members were killed in March when Iran struck Port Shuaiba in Kuwait, while another Iranian attack in Jordan last month killed four U.S. troops, according to the Post.
CENTCOM typically maintains approximately 40,000 American troops spread across nearly 20 installations from Jordan to Oman.
Even before the current war began in February, however, U.S. commanders had already evacuated personnel from some Persian Gulf bases considered especially exposed to Iranian missiles and drones.
Some of those temporary movements may ultimately become permanent.
“Iran thinks we are in the traditional places,” one person familiar with the changes told the Post. “And we are not.”
The emerging debate reflects one of the central strategic problems Washington has encountered during the conflict: U.S. forces have demonstrated the ability to inflict enormous damage on Iran’s military infrastructure, but that battlefield advantage has not yet produced a lasting political settlement.
The White House announced in April that Operation Epic Fury had accomplished its principal military objectives after American forces struck more than 13,000 targets and severely degraded Iran’s missile forces, navy and defense-industrial capacity.
The administration said those military successes had given President Donald Trump “maximum leverage” in negotiations.
Iran nevertheless retained enough missile and drone capability to continue targeting American forces and U.S. partners.
Tehran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz has also become a major obstacle to turning military superiority into a broader strategic resolution.
Trump signed a preliminary agreement with Iran in June that was intended to end the fighting and begin negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program and the Strait of Hormuz.
That framework later broke down.
Intermittent military strikes resumed, formal negotiations remain stalled, and Washington has continued seeking new intermediaries and backchannels to figures within Iran’s increasingly influential Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Several major U.S. objectives therefore remain unresolved.
Iran still possesses some missile and drone capability. The status of its enriched uranium remains disputed. Reopening the Strait of Hormuz has proven especially difficult.
The administration’s objectives have also shifted during the course of the war, making the definition of a final victory more complicated even after the Pentagon achieved many of the military objectives originally assigned to it.
The conflict has simultaneously demonstrated the financial and logistical burden of maintaining a large American military presence within range of Iranian weapons.
The Pentagon has estimated that operations will cost approximately $37.5 billion through September, not including the cost of rebuilding damaged American installations.
U.S. forces have also fired more than 1,000 sophisticated Patriot and THAAD interceptors while defending personnel and bases from Iranian attacks.
“The war really did highlight the vulnerability of U.S. forces in the region,” former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Michael Ratney told the Post.
One option under consideration would shift more U.S. forces westward, potentially toward Jordan, Israel or locations along Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea coast.
Ratney said greater distance from Iran could reduce some of the danger to U.S. forces, although repositioning troops would not provide a “perfect solution to this problem.”
CENTCOM commander Adm. Bradley Cooper supports considering a westward shift of American forces away from the Persian Gulf, according to the Post.
Such a move could alter decades of U.S. military planning in a region where Gulf governments have long depended heavily on an American security presence.
Those governments would have difficulty replacing U.S. military protection quickly if Washington substantially reduced its footprint.
At the same time, frustration with the United States has increased among some Gulf governments since the war began, while the conflict has encouraged regional leaders to reconsider longstanding defense relationships and seek alternatives to complete dependence on Washington.
Former National Security Council official Allison Minor said a smaller American troop presence would not necessarily require abandoning broader U.S. partnerships in the region.
Washington could continue weapons sales, intelligence sharing and other security cooperation even if fewer American forces were stationed at vulnerable Gulf installations.
“But you need to be discussing all of those comprehensively and not just the question of the sheer number of troops,” Minor said.
The internal debate could also revive an existing divide within the Trump administration.
Some officials favor maintaining a substantial U.S. military presence in the Middle East to protect American interests and regional partners.
Others have argued that personnel, weapons and other military resources should increasingly be redirected toward homeland defense and strategic competition with China.
The war with Iran has added urgency to that argument by demonstrating both the effectiveness of American military power and the risks associated with concentrating troops and infrastructure within striking distance of Tehran.
For now, no permanent restructuring has been approved.
Any major change to America’s Middle East basing strategy would require decisions by senior Trump administration officials, and the Pentagon’s current work remains an assessment of future options rather than an order to withdraw forces.
Still, the damage inflicted on U.S. facilities, the deaths of American personnel and the enormous resources required to defend Gulf installations have forced Pentagon planners to reconsider whether the basing structure Washington has relied upon for decades remains sustainable in a region where Iran has demonstrated an ability to strike it directly.
Original article
Comments