Three of the US military’s key regional outposts are either under attack or in turmoil, highlighting the growing geopolitical tensions, expanding wars, and the diminishing ability of the US to project its military might across the globe.
While many countries like the G7 nations and those not aligned with major power blocs maintain barely a dozen foreign military bases, the US maintains over 1,000 well-staffed and well-equipped bases overseas. Most of them are concentrated in Europe and Japan where the US has constructed clusters of over 500 military bases. These bases form a strategic barrier around the combined Eurasia landmass occupied by Russia and China.
Unlike the US, Russia has a relatively smaller presence with only five bases, mostly concentrated in former Soviet Union (FSU) countries. China has a similarly small footprint with only two overseas bases. Despite this, the US is always prepared to offer military support to its friends when needed. During the April missile barrage on Israel by Iran, US F-16s flew alongside the Israeli Air Force, successfully intercepting and shooting down most of the incoming missiles and drones.
Israel and the Middle East
Israel is a key US political ally in the Middle East, serving as a strategic foothold for both intelligence collaboration and military purposes. Israel’s position is precarious in a region with few allies.
In September 2017, the US established its first permanent military base in Israel – a dedicated air defense facility housed within the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) Mashabim Air Base in the Negev desert. This installation is operated by the US military’s European Command (EUCOM). Israel’s security apparatus relies heavily on both US military and financial aid.
Existeing alongside this facility is a US radar installation known as Site 512, located atop Har Qeren also in the Negev desert. This facility employs the AN/TPY-2 radar system to provide early warning of ballistic missile threats, primarily from Iran and its surrogates. Initially well-staffed with approximately 100 US soldiers, recent expansions have allowed an increase in capacity to accommodate up to 1,000 personnel.
Following Hamas’ October 7 attacks, the US bolstered its military presence in Israel. In October 2024, the US deployed a Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) system, along with about 100 troops, to bolster Israel’s air defenses. Additionally, US special operations forces are engaged in Israel, providing intelligence sharing and planning, particularly regarding efforts to recover hostages captured by Hamas during their terrorist attack last year.
US support for Tel Aviv seems implacable. American weapons continue to flow into the conflict, despite growing outrage over the near 50,000 civilian deaths in Gaza. US defiance of the international community, with the White House refusing to acknowledge the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant on war crime charges against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is also symptomatic of this unwavering support.
However, the region is descending deeper into a wider war, with a shaky ceasefire in Lebanon now close to collapse. The shite conflict in Syria has flared up anew, with the fall of Aleppo already attracting reinforcements from Iraq and Russia, escalating the conflict further.
However, the US cannot withdraw from the region nor
* How has the rise of Russia and China influenced perceptions of the U.S. military presence abroad?
## Interview: The Cost of Global Military Presence
**Host:** Welcome back. Today, we’re discussing a pressing issue: the United States’ extensive global military footprint and its implications. To help us understand this complex topic, we have Dr. Anya Petrova, a renowned international relations expert and author of “Global Garrison: The US Military and the New World Order.” Welcome to the show, Dr. Petrova.
**Dr. Petrova:** Thank you for having me.
**Host:** Let’s start with the statement that the US, unlike many other nations, maintains a massive network of over 1,000 overseas military bases. Why does the US have such a large presence, and what are the potential consequences of this?
**Dr. Petrova:** The US has long believed in a strategy of forward deployment, arguing that maintaining bases close to potential adversaries deters aggression. [[1](https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/withdrawing-overseas-bases-why-forward-deployed-military-posture-unnecessary)]. However, this strategy is increasingly questioned. Critics argue that these bases actually exacerbate tensions by provoking fear and counterbalancing efforts from other countries, ultimately making the world less stable.
**Host:** We’re seeing this play out in various regions, notably the Middle East, where US bases are often targets of attacks. Isn’t this a sign that the strategy isn’t working?
**Dr. Petrova:** It certainly raises questions. This concentration of bases, particularly in Europe and Japan, creates what some call a “strategic barrier” around Russia and China. This can be seen as provocative, particularly given the rise of these powers on the global stage.
**Host:** There’s also the inherent cost of maintaining such a vast network. How does this impact the US economy and its ability to address other pressing domestic issues?
**Dr. Petrova:** That’s a crucial point. These bases require significant financial resources, which could be directed towards domestic needs like infrastructure, education, or healthcare. There’s a growing debate about whether these expenditures are justifiable in light of changing global dynamics.
**Host:** This brings us back to the original question: is the US global military presence a relic of the past, or is it still relevant in today’s world?
**Dr. Petrova:** That’s a debate with no easy answers. We need a serious reassessment of our global posture, considering the costs, the benefits, and the potential alternatives. Perhaps a more targeted and less intrusive approach could be more effective in addressing contemporary threats.
**Host:** Dr. Petrova, thank you for sharing your invaluable insights with us today. This is certainly a conversation we need to continue having.
