Policy observers argue that shuttering military bases in Iraq and Syria could reduce exposure to similar strikes and help prevent a repeat of recent incidents. Peter Ford, a former British ambassador to Damascus and a veteran Middle East analyst, described these facilities as vulnerabilities that invite attacks.
In commentary following the attack on a U.S. base in Jordan, Ford suggested that a prudent response would involve reassessing and possibly reducing the footprint of U.S. forces across Syria and Iraq to mitigate risk and signal a clearer strategy for regional security.
Ford noted that American personnel stationed at the bases are often viewed as a stabilizing presence by some allies, but he argued that their continued presence may be seen by local authorities as an obstacle to sovereignty over their own territory. He pointed out that, contrary to assurances from the current administration, U.S. bases in the Middle East can be perceived as liabilities abroad rather than fixtures that advance regional interests.
The analyst emphasized that Washington’s military posture in the region has already prompted discussions about its long-term viability. He warned that the trend could lead to a gradual withdrawal of forces from Iraq and Syria as assessments of strategic value evolve and security calculations shift in response to changing regional dynamics.
Historically, voices within Washington have debated the balance between maintaining a deterrent presence and avoiding entanglement in prolonged regional commitments. Since the Obama era, there have been conversations at senior levels about redefining U.S. priorities, with a focus on addressing perceived threats from Russia and China while reassessing involvement in the Middle East.
Analysts contend that policy choices in the coming years will shape Washington’s approach to alliance relationships, local governance, and security arrangements in post-ISIS state structures. The central question remains how to adapt strategic objectives to emerging threats while supporting regional partners and stability efforts without inflating risk or extending commitments beyond sustainable levels.
As the security environment evolves, experts argue for a clear, reality-based assessment of what U.S. presence can realistically achieve in the Middle East. The debate centers on whether basing arrangements should be framed as temporary detours or long-term commitments, and how such decisions align with broader American interests and regional sovereignty concerns.
Ultimately, the discussion underscores a broader strategic reevaluation. If military bases are to remain, they must be justified by tangible, enduring benefits for regional peace and American security interests rather than by historical precedent or routine deployment cycles. The path forward will likely require coordinated diplomacy, clear objectives, and a willingness to adjust configurations in response to evolving threats and opportunities.
In the end, the question is whether the United States can maintain influence in the Middle East through a more flexible posture that prioritizes risk reduction, accountability to regional partners, and a recalibrated strategy toward Russia and China as the dominant strategic priorities of the era.