Precision weapons made US bases vulnerable — and less necessary, report says

The same advances in precision weapons that exposed the vulnerability of U.S. military bases in the Middle East could also make those installations less useful to American forces waging future war in the region, according to a new assessment.

The Iran war showed that a combination of long-range bombers operating from the United States and Britain, plus carrier-based aircraft and missiles launched from ships, could deliver much of the needed firepower from afar, Defense Priorities, a Washington think tank that advocates a more restrained U.S. foreign policy, said in an analysis released Thursday.

“The accuracy of U.S. missiles and aircraft makes bases in the Middle East less necessary,” Benjamin Friedman, policy director at Defense Priorities, wrote in the analysis. “The proliferation of accuracy, meanwhile, makes them more vulnerable.”

A U.S. Air Force B-52 bomber flies alongside a Marine Corps F-35B fighter in the U.S. Southern Command area of responsibility, Oct. 15, 2025. A new analysis argues that as precision-guided missiles and drones proliferate to rivals like Iran, U.S. bases in the Middle East have grown more vulnerable and less necessary. (U.S. Air Force)

Iran has repeatedly struck the sprawling U.S. network of installations across the region, damaging aircraft, radars, communications equipment and other infrastructure that had long been considered indispensable to U.S. foreign policy aims.

The attacks damaged or destroyed hundreds of buildings and structures, including at the Navy’s main regional logistics hub in Bahrain, U.S. Central Command officials told the Pentagon’s inspector general in a report issued this month.

The situation spotlights a dilemma now facing U.S. military planners, who must grapple with the merits of rebuilding and returning troops to damaged bases that may no longer play as vital a role in projecting power.

For decades, the proximity of bases to potential hot spots was seen as a major advantage for the U.S. military. Such networks enable fighter planes to fly more sorties and shorten supply lines while providing a staging area for other forces.

Bases also serve purposes beyond strike capability, including reassuring allies and enabling rapid crisis response.

U.S., Kuwaiti and allied forces take part in exercise Sky Shield, a live-fire air and missile defense exercise at the Udari Range Complex, Kuwait, Dec. 9, 2025. U.S. bases in the Gulf have grown increasingly vulnerable to missile and drone strikes from Iran. (Michael Hunnisett/U.S. Army)

But those bases no longer enjoy the same degree of sanctuary they once did, given the relatively inexpensive drones and precision missiles now available to adversaries like Iran, the think tank noted.

Other analysts have drawn similar conclusions. Retired Gen. David Petraeus, former head of U.S. Central Command, also recently argued that U.S. bases around the Persian Gulf are no longer viable.

Yet the risk such vulnerabilities present to U.S. interests can now be mitigated by the American military’s ever-improving ability to strike at range, Defense Priorities argued. 

A more Navy-focused approach to air wars, with a budget to match, also would reduce U.S. vulnerabilities while offering significant combat power, the report said.

Still, during the Iran conflict, various Middle East bases used by American forces played notable roles in supporting aircraft, logistics and ground-based missile launches. But there were alternatives available to the Pentagon, the report contends.

“It could have used a sea-based and long-range strike posture, meaning just naval assets and bombers firing missiles at stand-off distance, eschewing Air Force fighters needing regional air bases, along with short-range, ground-based rocket systems,” the report said.

The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln conducts a Close-In Weapon System live-fire exercise in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of operations, Sept. 16, 2026. A new analysis argues that as precision-guided missiles and drones proliferate to rivals like Iran, U.S. bases in the Middle East have grown more vulnerable and less necessary, fueling calls for the U.S. to withdraw from the region and rely instead on long-range strikes from bombers and carriers. (Hannah Tross/U.S. Navy)

A Navy-first alternative has limits. The U.S. carrier fleet already faces strain from deployment tempo and shipbuilding delays, raising questions about whether enough carriers would be available to replace a permanent base network.

And even long-range strikes from ships and bombers thousands of miles from Iran do not eliminate the need for forward bases in some fashion, including the air-refueling tankers that were key to long-range strike missions.

But more broadly, the vulnerability of overseas bases is “part of a larger story about how smaller powers can increasingly contest U.S. military hegemony in growing swaths of the world,” the report said.

The Pentagon has yet to decide which damaged facilities to rebuild or what its future presence in the Middle East will look like, according to the recent Pentagon inspector general report.

“Limiting base vulnerability is possible but expensive, and Iran and its partners can potentially overcome improved defenses by increasing missile and drone stockpiles at far lower cost,” Defense Priorities said.

“In the longer term, whatever happens with Iran, the region’s instability means that new adversaries with threatening missile arsenals may emerge.”