Officials across the U.S. military and intelligence community have begun informal discussions about reducing the American presence in the Middle East, according to six sources familiar with the conversations. The talks center on cutting the number of people and facilities typically stationed in the region if the Trump administration succeeds in ending the Iran conflict. The discussions reflect a broader reckoning with a military posture that has defined U.S. national security for more than two decades.
In the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks, the U.S. exponentially expanded a constellation of permanent military and intelligence facilities to fight wars and conduct strikes in half a dozen countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Yemen, and Libya. The recent fighting with Iran has laid bare deep vulnerabilities in that American infrastructure, as many of those sites have become targets of repeated Iranian attacks in an unpopular war that has killed 18 American service members.
The damage to existing installations has been significant. The CIA's outpost in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, was effectively destroyed by an Iranian attack, according to one U.S. official and a former intelligence officer, and American military installations in Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait have all been struck by Iranian drones and missiles. In some cases, the U.S. government may simply decline to rebuild assets that were severely damaged or destroyed by Iranian attacks, in part due to cost considerations, according to one official and two other sources familiar with the discussions.
The current U.S. presence in the region remains substantial even as those conversations unfold. There are still 50,000 troops and a large number of military assets in the Middle East, including two aircraft carriers and more than a dozen guided-missile destroyers. The U.S. military is also evaluating how to harden its defenses for troops expected to remain in the region, including by moving some installations underground to better defend against missile and drone attacks.
For specialized units, some officials have floated an alternative to permanent basing altogether. For the CIA and the military's elite special operations command, some officials have considered whether the same sensitive jobs can be done without permanent basing — leaving personnel and equipment stationed in the United States, sending them to the Middle East for individual missions, then returning home.
Officials involved in the informal discussions indicated they are acting at least in part to predict what might be acceptable to a president who sources say has articulated no clear strategy for a postwar future, and who in the past has staked his political identity on reducing American forces overseas. Sources said there was no official process or direct order to conduct what is known formally as a force posture review.
The prospect of a negotiated end to the conflict that might trigger any drawdown remains distant. The U.S. appears no closer to negotiating a settlement with Iran that would end the conflict, and Iran continues to target U.S. bases and forces deployed to the region. Top U.S. military leaders have recently warned that combat options for escalating the conflict are unlikely to achieve stated objectives, but there is no clear timeline for how long an economic pressure strategy may take to produce results. The Navy's top admiral said last week that personnel would not be returning to Bahrain, the traditional home of the 5th Fleet, "anytime soon."
Whether any formal force posture review will be ordered — and what shape a post-conflict U.S. presence in the Middle East might take — remains unresolved as fighting continues.