The American magazine Foreign Affairs has warned in a new analysis that the Islamic Republic of Iran’s attacks on countries hosting US forces in the Persian Gulf have posed a strategic question to Washington’s allies: is it still justifiable to continue hosting the US war machine, given its heavy and increasing costs? The analysis clarifies that the US withdrawal from the region is not a choice, but a necessity dictated by new security equations.
Publish dateThursday 11 June 2026 - 09:12
Story Code : 357447
Afghan Voice Agency (AVA): This analysis, published in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, while pointing out the controversial nature of the Trump administration’s motives for entering the war with Iran, highlights a key but less-considered factor: the US was able to enter the war more than 6,000 miles from its borders not because of its inherent power, but because of the “possibility” of doing so.
Absolute dependence on regional infrastructure
Recalling the principles of military theory, the report emphasizes that even powerful armies face serious limitations in exerting power over long distances. Weapons have limited range, aircraft require multiple refuelings, and supporting a distant front is complex and costly. The secret to America’s ability to operate in remote parts of the world is its extensive network of bases and infrastructures of its allies. The recent war with Iran has followed the same pattern, revealing Washington’s complete dependence on regional countries.
The heavy price paid by host countries
According to Foreign Affairs, the price of this cooperation was very heavy for the countries that agreed to host. From the very first days of the war, Iran fired thousands of missiles and drones at targets associated with the United States. Military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE were targeted, and even vital civilian infrastructure such as desalination plants and airports were not spared from these attacks. The author considers Iran’s strategic goal to be “to force host governments to expel American forces,” and states that Tehran has largely succeeded in this direction.
The inverted equation; the cost of defending the host outweighs the benefits of the American presence
The analysis warns that the experience of this war has led many countries to believe that hosting American forces makes them a direct target for Washington’s enemies, a concern that has been exacerbated by the proliferation of cheap drones and ballistic missiles. Today, it is far less expensive for a country like Iran to build thousands of these weapons than to build the necessary defense systems to counter them. In other words, the cost of securing host countries against retaliatory attacks now outweighs the benefits of the American presence.
Allies’ disobedience; Signs of a Strategic Turn
Foreign Affairs writes, citing specific examples of the lack of cooperation of US allies during the recent war: Spain and Italy restricted access to some bases and their airspace, and Turkey did not issue a permit to use the strategic Incirlik base for combat operations against Iran. These cases are considered early signs of a strategic turn among Washington's allies.
Withdrawing from the region; an inevitable necessity
Foreign Affairs' final conclusion is a clear warning: If the current trend continues and more countries refuse to grant the US military access, not only will Washington's ability to intervene around the world be severely eroded, but the basis of US military hegemony after World War II will also collapse. In such circumstances, US withdrawal from the region is no longer an option, but a necessity that the new security dynamics in the Middle East have made it inevitable.
Absolute dependence on regional infrastructure
Recalling the principles of military theory, the report emphasizes that even powerful armies face serious limitations in exerting power over long distances. Weapons have limited range, aircraft require multiple refuelings, and supporting a distant front is complex and costly. The secret to America’s ability to operate in remote parts of the world is its extensive network of bases and infrastructures of its allies. The recent war with Iran has followed the same pattern, revealing Washington’s complete dependence on regional countries.
The heavy price paid by host countries
According to Foreign Affairs, the price of this cooperation was very heavy for the countries that agreed to host. From the very first days of the war, Iran fired thousands of missiles and drones at targets associated with the United States. Military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE were targeted, and even vital civilian infrastructure such as desalination plants and airports were not spared from these attacks. The author considers Iran’s strategic goal to be “to force host governments to expel American forces,” and states that Tehran has largely succeeded in this direction.
The inverted equation; the cost of defending the host outweighs the benefits of the American presence
The analysis warns that the experience of this war has led many countries to believe that hosting American forces makes them a direct target for Washington’s enemies, a concern that has been exacerbated by the proliferation of cheap drones and ballistic missiles. Today, it is far less expensive for a country like Iran to build thousands of these weapons than to build the necessary defense systems to counter them. In other words, the cost of securing host countries against retaliatory attacks now outweighs the benefits of the American presence.
Allies’ disobedience; Signs of a Strategic Turn
Foreign Affairs writes, citing specific examples of the lack of cooperation of US allies during the recent war: Spain and Italy restricted access to some bases and their airspace, and Turkey did not issue a permit to use the strategic Incirlik base for combat operations against Iran. These cases are considered early signs of a strategic turn among Washington's allies.
Withdrawing from the region; an inevitable necessity
Foreign Affairs' final conclusion is a clear warning: If the current trend continues and more countries refuse to grant the US military access, not only will Washington's ability to intervene around the world be severely eroded, but the basis of US military hegemony after World War II will also collapse. In such circumstances, US withdrawal from the region is no longer an option, but a necessity that the new security dynamics in the Middle East have made it inevitable.
avapress.net/vdcjxaetauqeixz.92fu.html
Top hits
