From the UK to the Gulf, are US overseas bases becoming liabilities?

In October 2026, the US removed all 12 of its B-1 Lancer bombers from RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, England, amid security concerns. The withdrawal followed British security arrests and government accusations that Iran plotted to target the base, which Tehran has denied.

RAF Fairford is not an isolated case. Earlier in the month, the US withdrew a dozen planes from another British base, RAF Mildenhall. In July, reports indicated the US had relocated many military assets from Gulf bases damaged during the Iran war to facilities in Jordan, with a possible move to Israel under consideration.

Strategic assets become liabilities

For decades, US overseas bases have served as critical platforms for projecting power globally and as security guarantees for allies. However, Iran's ability to damage US facilities during the war and extend threats to Europe has transformed these strategic assets into potential liabilities, according to analysts.

The changing security bargain

Hosting American bases has long been perceived as integral to how US allies deter threats. Former President Barack Obama spoke of an "ironclad commitment" to Gulf security, while Britain invoked its "special relationship" with the US. However, recent incidents are testing this narrative and raising questions about whose interests these commitments serve.

US prosecutors have charged three Iranian-backed operatives over alleged plots for nearly 20 attacks across the US and Europe, including on RAF Fairford. In the Gulf, Iran explicitly cited US bases as justification for targeting neighboring countries, bombing Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Jordan, and Iraq.

A September Pentagon report revealed Iranian attacks damaged and destroyed hundreds of buildings at US military installations in the region. At least five KC-135 aerial refuelling tankers were damaged when hit at Prince Sultan airbase in Saudi Arabia.

US dilemma and base vulnerabilities

Washington faces its own strategic dilemma. Bases provide reach for faraway wars but also give adversaries targets. In March, an Iranian drone hit a British base in Cyprus used by the US. Bulgaria later allowed US air tankers to leave its Bezmer airbase after Iranian threats.

In the Middle East, several key bases have been almost rendered unusable, with Kuwait suffering the heaviest damage. An attack on the Port of Shuaiba killed six US service members and destroyed an operations center. Iranian strikes damaged facilities at Ali Al Salem airbase and Camp Buehring in Kuwait.

In Qatar, an Iranian strike damaged early warning radar at Al Udeid airbase, which houses CENTCOM's air operations headquarters. In Bahrain, a drone struck communications equipment at the US Fifth Fleet headquarters.

Experts note that large bases are becoming more easily targeted, particularly with Iran's investment in cheap, domestically produced drones that inflict disproportionate damage. "Bases are more vulnerable, and that changes the risk calculation," said Urban Coningham of RUSI.

Future strategic shifts

As the US moves military assets out of bases in the Gulf and Europe, it may increasingly rely on Israel, its closest Middle East ally. Analysts suggest there are "already signs that CENTCOM is moving towards using Israel as a key forward base."

The war has disrupted flights and shipping, threatening oil and gas exports vital to Gulf economies. While President Trump stated further military action against Iran was unnecessary for now, the US naval blockade remains in place, and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has not returned to normal.

"The longer-term solution is to work with partners and ensure that allied forces are ready to fend for themselves," Coningham suggested. As the conflict continues, the viability and strategic value of US overseas bases remain under intense scrutiny.