Bases, soldiers and firepower: Mapping the US military's stake in the Middle East
At its narrowest point, the Persian Gulf is only 55 kilometres wide.
One coastline is dotted with US military bases, and the other bank is the border of Iran.
The United States has a substantial military footprint across the Middle East, amassed over decades.
Several permanent bases in the region house thousands of troops, advanced military hardware, US Air Force units and US Navy fleets.
Those bases are on high alert after Iran vowed to retaliate against US strikes on it nuclear sites over the weekend, warning American assets in the region were "legitimate targets".
The concerns were substantiated on Monday local time, when Iran said it had launched a strike at US bases in the region.
But US officials say they are "fully postured to respond", and any attack on its troops would be a mistake.
Where are the US bases?
Currently, there are at least 19 US military facilities across the Middle East, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.
These have shifted and evolved over the years as security priorities and regional relationships changed.
Eight are considered to be permanent. Among them are sites in Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
The US also has about 40,000 troops deployed across the region, defence officials said.
Qatar base a 'critical cornerstone'
The US bases are the launch point for air, sea, and intelligence missions.
The Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, built in 1996, is the largest and most significant in the Middle East.
It was among the sites targeted by Iran.
It covers an area of about 24 hectares.
The base hosts the US Central Command regional headquarters and more than 11,000 US and Coalition service members.
The 379th Air Expeditionary Wing — the largest wing in the Air Force — is stationed at the site, along with hundreds of combat aircraft, tankers, aerial refuelling, and intelligence assets.
Intelligence analysts describe the base as "a critical cornerstone of military operations".
It has supported military operations across the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia, including serving as the primary staging ground for air forces in the campaign against Islamic State (ISIS) militants.
The US began carrying out counterterrorism operations against ISIS across Syria and Iraq in 2014.
The UK also has access to the air base.
Bahrain singled out
The Naval Support Activity facility in Bahrain is home to the US Navy's Fifth Fleet, which includes about 9,000 military personnel and civilian employees.
Its operations cover approximately 6.5 million square km of water, spanning crucial choke points such as the Strait of Hormuz, the Suez Canal and the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb.
After the US dropped more than a dozen of its 30,000-pound (14-tonne) "bunker-buster" bombs on Iran's key underground nuclear facilities on Sunday, Tehran promised to respond.
The US strikes came after a week of open conflict between Israel and Iran, sparked by Israel's sudden barrage of attacks against Iran's nuclear and military structure.
Iranian officials said "any country in the region or elsewhere that is used by American forces" was a target, but Bahrain was singled out.
"Now it is our turn to, without wasting time, as a first step, fire missiles at the US naval fleet in Bahrain and at the same time close the Strait of Hormuz to American, British, German and French ships," Hossein Shariatmadari, a representative of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in the hardline Kayhan newspaper.
The aircraft carrier USS Dwight D Eisenhower and other warships crosses the Strait of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf. ( US Navy via AP )
Iraq and Syria past targets
Analysts say it is possible Iran will follow through with threats to strike US military assets.
US bases in Iraq have repeatedly come under attack from Iran and its proxies in recent years.
"Iranian attacks against United States interests in the region appear likely, and perhaps even against the United States," Ben Zala, a senior lecturer in International Relations at Monash University, said.
There are about 2,500 US troops in Iraq as part of the international coalition against ISIS.
They are stationed at various installations, including the Al-Asad and Arbil air bases.
Iraq's al-Asad air base is home to US forces. ( AP: Nasser Nasser/File )
Iranian missile strikes targeted Al-Asad and another US base in Erbil in 2020 in retaliation for the US killing of Iranian General Qassim Soleimani.
There were no reported US deaths, but Pentagon officials said more than 100 troops were diagnosed with brain injuries following the attack.
US forces in Iraq and Syria were also repeatedly targeted by pro-Iran militants following the outbreak of the Gaza war in October 2023.
Iranian-backed militias launched missiles and drones at al-Asad as recently as August.
The US responded with heavy strikes on Tehran-linked targets.
Kuwait in the firing line
Kuwait houses several sprawling military installations, including Camp Arifjan, the forward headquarters of US Army Central.
The Ali Al Salem, known as "The Rock" for its isolated, rugged environment, is roughly 40km from the Iraqi border.
It hosts the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing, which the military describes as the "primary airlift hub and gateway for delivering combat power to joint and coalition forces" in the region.
Facilities in countries such as Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are not usually attacked.
But any nearby country would be an easy target for Iran's retaliation, experts say.
US bases are highly guarded facilities, including air defence systems to protect against missiles and drones.
But even with sophisticated air defences, they would have limited warning time to respond to waves of missile, drone or rocket strikes.
Iran weapons 'far from extinguished'
Iran has spent decades building multi-tiered military capabilities at home and across the region that were at least partly aimed at deterring the US from attacking it.
The country's military infrastructure has been targeted in Israeli strikes over the past week, but analysts say there would still be enough weapons to respond to the US strikes.
"Iran's military capabilities are degraded but far from extinguished," said Jonathan Panikoff, from the Atlantic Council's Middle East Security Initiative.
He added that Iran might also engage with allied groups in the region.
"[Iran] could seek to not only leverage proxies in the Middle East to attack US interests and personnel, but also potentially undertake asymmetric attacks and terrorist attacks against global Israeli, Jewish, or US targets," he said.
US troops gather to hear Donald Trump deliver remarks during a visit to Al Udeid Air Base Qatar in May 2025. ( Reuters: Brian Snyder )
The New York Times reported that US military and intelligence officials detected signs that Iran-backed militias were preparing to attack US bases in the Middle East.
Bases in Iraq, and possibly Syria, were named as possible targets, but so far, the groups have held off.
The chairperson of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, said the US military had increased protection of troops in the region, including in Iraq and Syria.
"Our forces remain on high alert and are fully postured to respond to any Iranian retaliation or proxy attacks, which would be an incredibly poor choice," he said.
US brings in reinforcements
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly warned Iran not to strike any US targets, saying any attack would be met with "the full strength and might of the US Armed Forces".
Since Israel launched its surprise attack on Iran, additional US fighter jets and refuelling tankers have been deployed to the region.
Earlier in the year, Washington also doubled its naval presence in the Middle East.
An additional carrier strike group was deployed due to the threat posed by the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Since 2023, the Iran-backed militant group has been carrying out attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, including strikes against US vessels.
A US MH-60 Seahawk helicopter flies over Iranian Revolutionary Guard patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz in 2018. ( AP: Jon Gambrell )
When the extra fleet was deployed, Elizabeth Dent, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the move signalled two things.
It suggested that the Trump administration was "posturing for sustained, decisive air operations against the Houthis and/or contingency planning in case tensions escalate with Iran," she said.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres has warned that the conflict risks "descending into a rathole of retaliation".
ABC/Wires
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


SBS Australia
17 minutes ago
- SBS Australia
SBS News in Easy English 24 June 2025
Welcome to SBS News in Easy English, I'm Camille Bianchi. US President Donald Trump has announced that Israel and Iran have agreed to a ceasefire. On his own social media network, Truth Social, President Trump said 'It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a complete and total ceasefire'. Neither Iran nor Israel have confirmed Mr Trump's statement. Mr Trump has also said he is considering overthrowing the Iranian government. Reza Pahlavi says he is ready to take over from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as interim leader of Iran. "I am here today to submit myself to my compatriots to lead them down this road of peace and democratic transition. I do not seek political power but rather to help our great nation navigate through this critical hour toward stability, freedom and justice." More Australians are asking for help to leave the Middle East, with 2,900 in Iran and 1,300 in Israel. Foreign Minister Penny Wong says Australia has paused buses that were leaving from Israel, because of safety concerns. If airports re-open, some Australians may be able to leave either Israel or Iran on two planes sent from Australia. Senator Wong says there are no changes to the threat level for travellers. "There are always risks - not only from escalation in the region, but also potential risks more broadly. I have indicated publicly that I have asked my department to consider whether - if there is any alteration to travel advice more generally." The triple murder mushroom trial is expected to end this week, after nine weeks. The jury will go to consider whether accused killer Erin Paterson knew she was feeding three family members poisonous mushrooms. She denies knowing the mushrooms were poisonous and says it was a terrible accident. The story is world-famous and businesses in the town of Morwell, two hours east of Melbourne, says the trial has brought big business. Laura Heller and John Nicoll are local business owners. 'Even though it's not great circumstances, it has been very good for our community because it's brought people from outside the area into the area. As you probably know, people have been lining up, early mornings to try and get in the court room and things like that, so it's just been good that they've been able to come to our town and see what we have to offer. It has been pretty busy, lot of journalists and legal people staying here at the motel, so normally a quieter time of the year, it has been a bit of a boom." The biggest group of First Nations students from a single degree have graduated from Monash University in Melbourne. 17 students from more than 20 communities have earned a Master of Indigenous Business Leadership, including Kaley Nicholson. "There is nothing more self-determined or self-determining than having your own business. You make every decision; the success and failure of that business really rests on your shoulders. And so that's an incredibly daunting thing to think about, but also it's so freeing." +++

ABC News
31 minutes ago
- ABC News
Donald Trump's claiming success in the Middle East, but big questions linger
After America rained bunker-buster bombs on Iran's nuclear sites at the weekend, the big question was: How would Iran respond? The Islamic Republic promised heavy punishment. But with limited capabilities, few allies and incapacitated proxy fighters, there appeared to be few good options to deliver it. Less than 48 hours after the US strikes, we saw an Iranian response — a barrage of missiles fired at America's biggest base in the Middle East. According to Donald Trump, 14 missiles were launched at the Al Udeid base in Qatar, which ordinarily houses about 10,000 troops. Thirteen of the missiles were taken down by Qatari air defences, and one was allowed to fall out of the sky because it wasn't a threat. But the key detail is that Iran shared its attack plan before it acted on it, so the Qatari base could be cleared to prevent casualties. This meant the missile launch was more of a performance than an attack. No injuries, little damage. And the ball back in Trump's court. So then the big question became: How would Trump respond? He'd warned Iran against striking US bases. Tit-for-tat escalation was now a frightening possibility. "There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran," Trump had told Americans in his televised address on Saturday night. "Remember, there are many targets left." Would Trump follow through on his threat to strike those targets? Was this a sudden turning point towards a wider war? Trump's answer arrived, true to form, in a social media post. It was a "thank you" to Iran. "I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured," Trump wrote. "Perhaps Iran can now proceed to peace and harmony in the region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same." Trump had never shown an appetite for a bloody battle with Iran. He'd spent weeks pressing its leaders to accept a no-nukes deal to prevent conflict. And after the nuclear facility strikes, he pushed the message it was "mission accomplished" — that diplomacy may have failed, but the nuclear threat was "obliterated" and the US was achieving, as he liked to say, "peace through strength". Trump's initial round of social media posting suggested he was willing to take what's been described as an "off-ramp" away from worsening hostilities. The deliberately benign nature of the attack on the base in Qatar appeared designed to de-escalate. It meant the US could leave Iran and Israel to continue trading blows themselves, free of the pressure to strike back that would have been created by American casualties. But then came another social post: Trump said Israel and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire. It would end what he had now named "the 12 day war". "Perhaps Iran can now proceed to peace and harmony in the region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same." His vice-president, JD Vance, told Fox News the deal must have been finalised while he was on his way to the cable network's Washington studios. Trump "was working the phones as I was on the way over here," Vance told the network, and declared it was "the beginning of something really big for peace in the Middle East". On the same channel a little later, Republican senator Katie Britt went even further. "Donald Trump is going to win the Nobel Peace Prize, no doubt," she said. "He has brought peace to a region that needed stability." But Israel wouldn't confirm the ceasefire agreement. Iran's foreign minister said there was no agreement, but that Iran would stop responding to Israeli aggression if Israel stopped the aggression. Just a couple of hours later, Israel said more missiles were being fired its way from Iran. Israelis sought shelter, but the national ambulance service later said several people had been killed. Around the same time, Trump was still celebrating on social media, predicting "love, peace, and prosperity" for both Israel and Iran. At the time of writing, it's not at all clear how concrete this agreement is. Even if the warring parties cease firing, the region's fate rests on some big unknowns. Trump, a frequent exaggerator, hasn't offered solid evidence to back his claim Iran's nuclear program is obliterated, and other officials have offered less certain assessments. Given all the forewarning before the bombings, there's also a high chance Iran's enriched uranium was moved away from the targeted facilities. The UN's nuclear watchdog says its whereabouts are unknown. Israel obviously won't be satisfied if it sees signs the enrichment program is revived. Then there's the ongoing assault on Gaza, where Israeli forces continue to kill Palestinians daily. In the past month, as the Iran-Israel war stole attention, hundreds of people in Gaza were apparently killed while seeking food from the new US-backed aid program. The official death toll in Gaza is approaching 56,000 — and may have even passed it. After an eventful day in the Middle East, America has been claiming some big wins. But there are also ongoing, devastating losses — and some big questions whose answers could easily change everything once again.

ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Did Trump just end the Israel-Iran war?
Sam Hawley: Donald Trump has announced a ceasefire in the Israel-Iran conflict, declaring it should be called the 12-Day War. It came not long after Iran fired missiles at an American military base in Qatar, retaliating against the US bombing of its key nuclear sites. News report: As evening crept across Qatar, the night sky lit up. Iran firing upon the Gulf state, sending ballistic and short-range missiles towards the Al Udeid base run by the United States. News report: Qatar says its own missiles successfully intercepted the attack and no one was injured, as the base had already been evacuated. News report: Flights have been suspended and airspace closed across the Middle East amid fears the situation could escalate further. News report: Breaking news: It's just been announced by Donald Trump that he has brokered a ceasefire in the war between Israel and Iran, a complete and total ceasefire. Sam Hawley: But there was confusion over whether Iran and Israel had agreed to Trump's ceasefire in the hours following the social media post. Today, Jonathan Panikoff from the Atlantic Council's Middle East program on whether peace will hold. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal Land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Jonathan, let's come to the details of this apparent ceasefire in a moment, announced, of course, by Donald Trump on his social media account. But first, a quick look at what led up to it. Incredibly, an attack on a US air base was a catalyst for peace in Donald Trump's eyes. Wasn't it? Jonathan Panikoff: It absolutely was. I think this was always going to come down to a fairly binary choice by Iran in terms of how it responded. Choice one was to, frankly, undertake a major attack, escalate the potential of conflict, bring US retaliation in a way that would really threaten the regime. But the regime's number one goal has always been survival. And I think tonight we saw that play out. So what you saw instead was the Iranian regime undertake a pragmatic attack that, frankly, followed a playbook we've seen from Iran before, a largely symbolic attack, one intended not to cause any casualties, but one that they could then at least have some bit of saving face and go back to the Iranian people and say: Look, we attacked the US, we stood up, now we're happy to de-escalate on our terms. Even if it's really not. Sam Hawley: Yeah, so Iran's calculation was it must spare US lives or the consequences for it would be enormous. Is that the calculation there? Jonathan Panikoff: I think that's the bottom line calculation. I think if you've seen US casualties as part of Iran's response, it would have been pretty hard for President Trump to make the decision that he wasn't going to respond and then risk, frankly, an escalatory spiral in which this engulfed the broader region potentially. Sam Hawley: Regardless, of course, it did cause quite a bit of chaos, including for international travellers with Qatar closing its airspace. Jonathan Panikoff: Absolutely. Look, obviously airspace being closed not only in Qatar but throughout the Gulf was going to cause some significant inconveniences and some real challenges, but I think in the end, if it also brings us to a ceasefire and a resolution, that's something that ultimately the region as a whole will breathe easier over, and my sense is a lot of folks in the region disappointed for travellers, but will take that trade-off. Sam Hawley: So, Jonathan, more broadly, what do we read into this action from Iran? It must be incredibly weakened. It also looks like it's not going to try and block the Strait of Hormuz, which was another big worry, which would have caused a major escalation, of course, because it's a major shipping route for oil. Jonathan Panikoff: That's right. It would have caused a real escalation and been hugely problematic. I think not having that, I think a little bit of a downturn, I think was probably what Iran wanted. The reality is Iran has had historically three parts of its power projections in the region, a triad, if you will. One has been its proxies throughout the region, like Hezbollah and Hamas. A second part has been its ballistic missiles program. And the third part was its nuclear program. And regardless of whether you believe that this was the right thing for Israel to do, the wrong thing for Israel to do, not just about the nuclear program, but Israel's actions throughout the region over the last 20 months, vis-a-vis Iran and its proxies, Iran has been significantly diminished in all three of those areas. And so now I think the question is, OK, does it portend new opportunities with a diminished Iranian power, which it could, or does Iran look to go and align closer with Russia in a way that long-term could be dangerous? Does it look to quickly try to rebuild, which would be problematic, but certainly is an option. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, Jonathan, of course, while this was all unfolding, Israel was continuing to strike Iran. It launched wide-ranging strikes on Tehran. It was winning this war, I assume. Jonathan Panikoff: I think it was winning the war, but Israel had two overall initial objectives. One was to diminish Iran's nuclear program, especially with the U.S. help at Fordow. That was certainly accomplished. The second was to diminish Iran's ballistic missile capabilities. And Israel didn't actually target the ballistic missiles. It targeted the launchers, and it targeted Iran's production facilities for those. There was concern in Israel from their estimates that Iran could have double or triple the amount of ballistic missiles it does today within the next five years. This was about slowing that and trying to undermine it as much as possible. But Israel also faced a challenge. While it's true that Iranian ballistic missile attacks into Israel have been diminished significantly thanks to Israeli strikes, at the same time there was real concern about the number of interceptors that Israel had left. There was some reporting that the numbers were critically low. That could have meant that Israel had to rely on the U.S. or others. I think that certainly might have happened for a time. But Israel was probably also running out of key targets and concerned about its own defence capabilities. And so I think Israel's going to look at this quite happily with the end result, even if it's not perfect. Sam Hawley: All right, well, as we mentioned, Donald Trump has now announced this ceasefire, a complete and total ceasefire, he says. News report: "Congratulations to everyone," it says in capital letters, with an exclamation mark, of course. "It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a complete and total ceasefire when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in-progress final missions!" Sam Hawley: Although initially that was read, of course, with caution, because, well, Donald Trump can be an unreliable source, can't he? Jonathan Panikoff: Yeah look, I think it's not unreasonable to be cautious about, you know, agreement on true social before it comes out from the Iranians and the Israelis themselves. I think it would be hard to imagine the Israelis would defy this after the amount of, frankly, leverage President Trump has built up with them by taking the decision to strike Fordow. But I also think that there's going to be a bit of a question here. You would not be surprised to still see some additional last strikes as Israel tries to get in a few last targets destroyed. The question now is, will it hold? I think certainly Iran would like it to. Israel, I think, will probably say yes. But there's real concerns about, has all of Iran's highly enriched uranium been destroyed because of the strike at Fordow, or was it moved beforehand? That could invite questions about, OK, are there follow-on strikes in the weeks or months to come that are required, or can there be a diplomatic solution to any remaining components of Iran's nuclear program? Sam Hawley: I was going to ask, is Israel really confident at this point that it has destroyed or severely, severely damaged Iran's nuclear program? That is what it set out to do. Jonathan Panikoff: I think Israel is confident that it's significantly set back Iran's nuclear program such that it's not an existential threat in the way that it was concerned it would be, that Iran could be weeks away from actually having a nuclear weapon. And whether or not that assessment was accurate, and obviously there's been some consideration that the US assessment may be different, Israel truly believe that, it seems. That probably is no longer a concern. But that's different from saying that Iran's nuclear program is completely obliterated and gone. And I'm not sure that that's nearly as true, and so there still may be real requirement for diplomacy or for future strikes. Sam Hawley: Mm, all right. This declaration of a ceasefire also came just a day after Donald Trump had hinted that regime change was really what's needed in Iran. So has he now abandoned that idea, has he? Jonathan Panikoff: I don't know if President Trump ever held that idea sincerely or it was something that he was throwing out to simply gain leverage. I don't know that those are mutually exclusive either. We've seen that the President sometimes has ideas that are initially about trying to gain some sort of leverage and then he actually ends up fulfilling them. But I think what has been clear is President Trump clearly wanted to get back to some level of diplomacy. I think there is concern within the US political system among President Trump's supporters from his MAGA base about how this issue was dividing the base. He had said he wanted to keep this narrow, that it was about the nuclear program only. If he went further toward regime change, I think it really could have split his base in a way that would have been problematic given the number of contentious and challenging domestic issues the President is facing. My sense is this gives him an off-ramp as well to not have to really face that type of divide. Sam Hawley: Well, as you indicated, Jonathan, ceasefires can be broken, of course, and they have been broken many times in the past. It's a very fluid time still, isn't it? Jonathan Panikoff: It is. I think this is a fragile ceasefire. I think we'll have to see, frankly, what agreement ends up coming to in the end and what is required of Iran, what they're willing to do, and what is required of Israel in order to keep it. Sam Hawley: Just tell me, how do you think now the world will view Donald Trump's decision to join this conflict, to bomb Iran? Jonathan Panikoff: I think even though we have a ceasefire today, it's still too early to know. Look, I think publicly there was a lot of condemnation. There was support from Australia, from some European quarters, but even privately, a lot of Arab governments, the message being sent privately were different than the message being sent publicly. They've lived with the threat of Iran for a lot of years, of an Iranian nuclear program. In one way, there's real opportunity here, because if this is extended, and it doesn't just end now, but there actually is a broader diplomatic agreement to limit any future Iranian nuclear program as well, then it means you really could have a more peaceful region. That Gulf states, for instance, wouldn't have the threat of an Iranian nuclear program hanging over their heads, and that would mean we'd have less proliferation. We've already known that Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, has been very clear, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, so too will Saudi Arabia. They would not have been alone. Turkiye, UAE, others may have been in that mix. And so I think history may look favourably upon that. At the same time, sometimes you don't know how these things are going to go. And there's also another avenue in which the Russians, who are also significantly isolated, say, look, we're going to actually increase our strategic alignment with the Iranians, and we're going to work together to try to repair some of their power projections in the region. And that may mean working with them eventually on a nuclear program. I don't think that would be first, but it wouldn't be a surprise too to see Russia decide it wants to put back air defences into Iran, that it's going to help Iran rebuild its ballistic missile program. And then it's not a far step to deciding also, if it really feels under threat, that it's going to contribute to helping Iran rebuild a nuclear program. Of course, it'll be for civilian purposes will be the claim. That won't make the region any calmer about it. Sam Hawley: Presumably Donald Trump will take this as a victory for the United States and for himself. Jonathan Panikoff: Certainly, I think Donald Trump was going to take this as a victory, no matter how it came out, to be totally honest. That's just the nature of President Trump. But given that you have a ceasefire, so long as it holds, given that the U.S. role was limited, given the war was 12 days, and given that Iran's nuclear program is significantly, significantly set back, and the U.S. has demonstrated now, it's no longer theoretical, a willingness to use force that'll have to be in the back of Iran's mind, but also China's mind in terms of the strategic steps it takes in the future. Donald Trump will see this as a victory. Sam Hawley: Jonathan Panikoff is the director of the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council's Middle East Program. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead and Adair Sheppard. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.