Strategic Myths and the Architecture of US Military in West Asia

The United States continues to maintain an extensive military presence in West Asia, which represents one of the most enduring features of post-Cold War geopolitics. Many analysts describe the American military presence in West Asia as a stabilizing influence. However, its actual effects have proven more complex than traditional narratives suggest.

Illustration by The Geostrata

US leaders from both Republican and Democratic administrations have used military capabilities to pursue multiple changing goals that range from protecting oil supplies to implementing regime changes parallel to counterterrorism operations and containment of Iran. During the Cold War, the initial security framework transformed into a vast permanent network of military bases with ongoing deployments and covert operations.

The US military maintains its deep entrenchment in West Asia through its deployment of more than 40,000 troops as of 2025 and with the establishment of at least 19 military sites across the region.

Including eight permanent bases in countries like Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt. While not all host countries are public, this presence spans a dozen or more nations, encompassing major air and naval facilities, and its routine deployment of bombers, drones, and special operations forces. 

However, critics argue that this prolonged presence has fostered instability rather than security, provoked resentment instead of reassurance, and contributed more to regional escalation than effective containment.

A LEGACY OF INTERVENTION AND OVERREACH

The origins of US military involvement in West Asia can be traced back to the early Cold War period, marked by covert operations to shape the regional political landscape. As detailed by Hugh Wilford in America’s Great Game, the CIA’s 1953 coup in Iran was designed to secure Western oil interests and prevent Soviet encroachment, which laid the groundwork for a pattern of sustained intervention, justified by Washington as a necessity to safeguard energy and strategic interests.

However, these early actions planted deep suspicions about US intentions, eventually giving rise to widespread anti-American sentiment and, eventually, violent resistance to US presence in the region.

The United States shifted its role to become an active hegemon after the Gulf War during the post-war period. Following the 1991 Iraq war, the United States established permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain. Many people in the region saw the defensive deployments as violations of their sovereignty and religious sanctity because American troops were stationed in Islamic holy sites.

According to Osama bin Laden, the deployment of American forces in Islamic holy sites became the primary cause of his jihad declaration against the United States.

After 9/11, the US responded with even stronger determination. Following the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 were justified as part of a broader war on terror, but these invasions started an unending campaign for political control and resource acquisition in America’s War for the Greater Middle East. These military operations proved to be strategically confusing while also generating significant financial and operational expenses.

The US removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq triggered sectarian violence while allowing Iran to gain power, and led to the emergence of ISIS in the resulting power vacuum. The American military presence in Afghanistan throughout 20 years of conflict resulted in the Taliban's return while reinforcing the widespread belief that US intervention represents imperialistic actions.

MAPPING THE ARCHITECTURE OF POWER

The US military establishes its operational presence throughout the geographical area stretching from the Levant to the Arabian Peninsula. The Council on Foreign Relations identifies US Central Command's forward headquarters at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar and Naval Support Activity Bahrain as the 5th Fleet's headquarters, while the military operates rotational bases in Iraq, Jordan, and Syria. Moreover, the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean functions as a strategic asset that offers extensive reach.

These installations perform various strategic roles by providing airpower projection capabilities, instant crisis response, and supporting naval control of important chokepoints in the Strait of Hormuz, especially serving as forward operating bases for intelligence and covert operations.

As Robert Vitalis argues in the book Oilcraft, this network of bases does not primarily serve the interests of oil security or regional peace; rather, it maintains a myth that US presence is indispensable for global energy stability.

A myth that is no longer supported by empirical energy data. The US becoming energy independent and importing only a minimal share of oil from the Gulf reflects the rationale that military guardianship of oil lanes is more ideological than material.

Moreover, these bases act as lightning rods for conflict, such as US bases in Iraq and Qatar experience missile attacks from Iran, often in retaliation for joint Israeli-American military operations. Similarly, American naval vessels operating in the Red Sea experienced drone attacks from Houthi rebels because of US support for the Saudi-led operations in Yemen, which shows how bases transform from protective shields into vulnerable targets.

THE US-ISRAEL MILITARY NEXUS

The US-Israel alliance remains one of the most enduring and controversial aspects of Washington’s military strategy in West Asia. While Israel does not host large numbers of American troops, it serves as a key defense partner, receiving vast amounts of military aid, intelligence support, and operational backing during regional crises.

Rooted in post-WWII sentiment, Cold War strategy, and shared cultural-religious identity, it has evolved into a de facto alliance reinforced by consistent military aid, political backing, and diplomatic engagement.

Since the 1970s, successive US administrations have deepened this bond, with Israel becoming more than just a strategic partner; it became a focal point of US regional policy. This alignment has shaped military deployments and interventions, often prioritizing Israel’s security over broader regional balance, as seen in American support during the Hamas-Israel conflict and involvement in normalizing relations through deals like the Abraham Accords.

However, the strategic costs are substantial. US alignment with Israel has triggered anti-American sentiment, undermined Washington’s image as an impartial mediator, and drawn US bases into retaliatory conflict zones. Critics argue this relationship enables militarized responses to political problems and reinforces perceptions of US double standards, calling into question the sustainability and credibility of American influence in West Asia.

SAUDI AND EMIRATI ANCHORS OF AMERICA’S GULF STRATEGY

The United States maintains a foundational security partnership with Gulf states, particularly with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, anchored in decades of arms deals, military cooperation, and regional contingency planning.

Most recently, during Trump’s 2025 visit to Riyadh, which secured a landmark $142 billion defense agreement, recorded as the largest in US history, covering transport aircraft, missiles, radars, and potentially drones, though high-end platforms like the F-35 remain constrained by legislative and diplomatic factors. Earlier in that trip, Saudi Arabia committed up to $600 billion in investments into US sectors, including defense, energy, and AI domains.

Both Saudi Arabia and the UAE have called for a binding, "ironclad" defense pact similar to US agreements with Japan and South Korea, aimed at guaranteeing US military support in the event of an attack.

Simultaneously, the United States Military Training Mission (USMTM) embedded in Saudi Arabia provides continuous military education, joint exercises, and strategic advisory support to the Saudi armed forces. US military presence includes three major bases in the UAE, such as Al Dhafra, Al Minhad, and Fujairah Naval Base, and an upcoming joint military hospital, underlining the strategic depth of the partnership.

The UAE is also recognized as the US’s most vital counterterrorism and intelligence-sharing ally in the Gulf. Together, these relationships illustrate a deep, institutionalized US security presence in the Gulf that spans training, deterrence, and alliance architecture, key pillars in America’s regional strategy.

THE REGIME CHANGE DELUSION

Regime change as a foreign policy instrument in West Asia has repeatedly failed to deliver the promised outcomes, with the belief that removing authoritarian leaders would automatically lead to peace and reform. These missions have overlooked the institutional and societal fault lines beneath the surface.

The operations that officials present as humanitarian aid or national defense requirements have frequently undermined long-term regional stability and damaged the credibility of external actors.

In earlier cases of US involvement, the US military overthrew Saddam Hussein in Iraq based on claims about weapons of mass destruction and democracy building goals. The decade-long insurgency, along with hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, resulted in a regional power shift that greatly benefited Iran.

The NATO intervention, which removed Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, created a failed state and sparked civil war while distributing weapons throughout the Sahel region.

The US intervention in Syria to support opposition groups extended the country's brutal civil war. Whether through direct intervention or political support, the US has influenced regime outcomes in ways that serve its interests, intensifying regional distrust. Every US-supported regime change has produced outcomes that include either authoritarian regimes returning to power or civil conflicts or terrorist groups rising in strength.

Military power has proven itself as an ineffective tool for establishing externally imposed democracy and liberal order in West Asia, as the region’s complex identity politics, persistent foreign interference, and fragile institutions consistently undermine the success of such interventions.

COUNTERTERRORISM AND THE NEW FACE OF WARFARE

The early 2000s brought regime change as a failed strategy, while the post-2014 period introduced limited interventionism through drone strikes and special forces, along with proxy militias. Michael R. Gordon’s Degrade and Destroy argues, the US campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq as a successful campaign that destroyed the caliphate through limited intervention.

The “by, with, and through” approach depends on training local partners while providing air support and embedding US forces as advisers in advisory roles.

The approach demonstrates a trend toward “low-risk” warfare with “high-tech” solutions. Yet even this model has limitations. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), along with other proxy forces, find themselves trapped in ethnic and political conflicts. The battlefield becomes complicated because Turkish forces oppose Kurdish fighters while Iran and Russia maintain their influence in Iraq and Syria, respectively.

The method lacks a vision for peace, which stands as its critical weakness. The approach demonstrates effectiveness in eliminating threats but fails to establish stable governance structures. The fall of ISIS did not bring an end to Iraq's Sunni alienation, nor did it solve Syria's Assad regime brutality or Lebanon and Yemen's sectarian conflicts. The United States has developed superior surgical strike techniques, yet it remains unsuccessful in solving the underlying political conditions that generate terrorism from the start.

THE ILLUSION OF OIL, THE REALITY OF POWER

The US military presence in West Asia is often justified by the claim of protecting energy security, yet this belief lacks substance. Oil-producing states reliably sell oil to sustain their economies, irrespective of political alignments, and the global market functions without the need for military oversight.

According to Robert Vitalis, the narrative of “keeping the oil flowing” has been used to legitimize interventions like the Iraq War and justify support for Gulf monarchies, but these actions primarily serve geopolitical control, alliance management, and ideological influence, not as resource protection. By framing its actions around oil, the US secures public backing while masking deeper strategic objectives.

The cost of sustaining the US military presence in West Asia has been immense. Since 9/11, the United States has spent over $5.9 trillion on wars in the region, with thousands of American soldiers losing their lives.

Perhaps more damaging is the moral fallout, as the United States has faced widespread criticism for its reliance on drone warfare, complicity in civilian bombings, and support for authoritarian regimes, undermining its credibility as a defender of democracy and freedom.

As of 2025, with deteriorating US-Iran relations, persistent crises in Gaza and Lebanon, and the growing influence of China and Russia, it is evident that America’s military engagement in West Asia has failed to meet its objectives. Rather than achieving stability or securing lasting partnerships, it has fostered strategic dependence, generated local opposition, and consumed valuable resources that could be redirected to other pressing global challenges.

AMERICA’S SLOW SHIFT FROM WEST ASIA TO THE INDO-PACIFIC

The United States has long sought to reorient its strategic focus from West Asia to the Indo-Pacific, driven by the influence of China, the region’s economic and technological centrality, and the need to reassure key allies such as Japan, Australia, and India.

However, a rapid pivot is unrealistic given ongoing security challenges in West Asia, ranging from Iran’s regional activities and instability in Gaza and Lebanon to threats against maritime trade, combined with the extensive network of military bases developed over decades in partnership with Israel and Gulf states, as well as domestic political limitations.

Decades of military entrenchment have created logistical, operational, and contractual dependencies that cannot be dismantled overnight without risking vacuums that adversaries, such as Russia and China, could exploit.

Moreover, the US industrial base is already strained by demands for shipbuilding and munitions production, making simultaneous large-scale reallocation critical. As such, any shift will likely be gradual, involving phased troop reductions tied to partner capacity building, increased burden-sharing, and a transformation of posture from large permanent bases to distributed, rotational deployments. 

Complementing this will require intensified diplomacy, integration into regional multilateral frameworks, and targeted economic engagement to maintain influence without overextension. Ultimately, the pivot must be a deliberate rebalancing rather than an abrupt retreat, aligning finite resources with Indo-Pacific priorities while ensuring West Asian stability and preserving US credibility as a global security partner.

DIPLOMACY AS THE NEW ARSENAL OF INFLUENCE

Rather than depending on long-term military installations and interventions framed as humanitarian missions, the US needs to engage in major investments in diplomacy, multilateral regional cooperation, and economic alliances. It has to insist that arms sales are conditional on the political reforms and stop blindly supporting the regimes that perpetuate repression.

The presence of the US in West Asia was based on the assumption that military power could shape order, resource security, as well as the reconfiguration of societies. The demonstrated cases of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya reveal that military strength is not the equal of strategic success. America does not need more missiles, but more humility. When all the interventions appear to solve one problem and create three more, it is high time to reconsider power and to commemorate diplomacy.

---

BY SHRUTI JAGTAP

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com