Three of the US military’s key overseas outposts are under fire, either literally or politically. Israel in the Middle East, Ukraine in Europe, and South Korea in East Asia are all facing significant challenges, fueled by rising geopolitical tensions, escalating conflicts, and a perceived decline in the US’s ability to project global military might.
While G7 nations and non-aligned major world powers maintain a modest number of foreign military bases, typically no more than a dozen, the US maintains a sprawling network exceeding 1,000 well-equipped and staffed bases abroad. The majority of these are clustered in Europe and Japan, forming a powerful and strategically significant presence along Russia and China’s eastern and northwestern borders.
Unlike other nations, the US has largely resisted withdrawing its forces from its post-World War II bases, except for France, where President Charles de Gaulle famously expelled the US military in 1967, including NATO headquarters, which subsequently moved to Brussels.
In stark contrast, Russia maintains a modest five military bases, primarily in former Soviet Republics, and China operates just two.
However, the US remains a vigilant defender of its allies. During Iran’s April missile barrage against Israel, US F-16 fighter jets flew alongside Israeli air force jets, successfully intercepting and bringing down most of the incoming missiles and drones.
**Israel and the Middle East**
Israel is a crucial US ally in the Middle East, serving as a strategic foothold in a volatile region. The partnership centers around mutually bolstering defense capabilities and intelligence sharing, as Israel finds itself with few other reliable allies in the region.
In September 2017, the US established its first permanent military base in Israel. Located within the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) Mashabim Air Base in the Negev desert, the base is operated by the US European Command (EUCOM).
Israel relies heavily on US military and financial aid to ensure its security. Additionally, the US operates a radar installation known as Site 512, nestled atop Har Qeren in the Negev Desert. This facility utilizes the AN/TPY-2 radar system, providing vital early warning of ballistic missile threats, particularly from Iran and its proxies.
Initially with a complement of around 100 US soldiers, Site 512 has recently undergone significant expansions, increasing its capacity to accommodate up to 1,000 personnel.
Following Hamas’ attack on October 7th, the US reinforced its military presence in Israel even further. In October 2024, the US deployed a Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) system, alongside approximately 100 troops, to bolster Israel’s air defense capability against potential missile strikes. Moreover, US special operations forces are actively engaged in intelligence sharing and planning with the IDF, actively working on the recovery of Israeli hostages snatched by Hamas during their terrorist attack last year.
US support for Israel is unwavering. It continues to supply weapons to Israel despite growing international concern over the nearly 50,000 civilian casualties in Gaza. The US has retreated from the international community by ignoring the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on war crimes charges issued
• How might a reduction in the US global military footprint impact relationships with allies in regions like the Middle East and Asia?
## The Shifting Sands of US Military Presence: Interview with Dr. Emily Carter
**Host:** Dr. Carter, thank you for joining us today. As we see simmering tensions around the world, it’s clear that the US military’s global footprint is under increasing scrutiny. Can you shed some light on the challenges facing three key US outposts: Israel, Ukraine, and South Korea?
**Dr. Carter:** Absolutely. These three locations represent crucial strategic interests for the US, but they each face unique challenges.
In the Middle East, **Israel** remains a vital ally, allowing the US to project power in a volatile region. However, the rise of Iran as a regional power and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict put considerable strain on this relationship. [[1](https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2022/09/overseas-bases-and-us-strategic-posture)]highlights the difficulty of US bases relying on local elites who may be beholden to rival powers, a dynamic we see play out in various regions.
Moving to Europe, **Ukraine** has become a focal point of geopolitical tension. While the US does not maintain traditional bases there, its commitment to supporting Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression is immense. This situation highlights a shift in US strategy, relying on military aid and partnerships rather than physical bases.
**South Korea**, situated on the Korean peninsula, faces a constant threat from North Korea. The US maintains a significant military presence there, a reminder of the lingering tensions after the Korean War.
**Host:** The article you mentioned talks about the vast number of US bases compared to other nations. Why does the US have such a sprawling network, and is this sustainable in the long term?
**Dr. Carter:** That’s a crucial question. The US amassed this network after World War II, driven by Cold War strategy and the idea of containing Communism.
In contrast, Russia and China maintain significantly fewer bases, reflecting their more regional focus.
Whether this vast network is sustainable is debatable. Critics argue it’s expensive, fosters dependence on the US, and strains international relations.
**Host:** What are some potential consequences if the US were to scale back its global military presence?
**Dr. Carter:** Reducing the US military footprint would undoubtedly have ripple effects.
Allies in strategically important regions might feel vulnerable and seek alternative security arrangements, potentially leading to a more multipolar world.
Conversely, it could compel the US to focus on developing more flexible and adaptable military capabilities, prioritizing diplomacy and partnerships over traditional bases.
**Host:** Thank you, Dr. Carter, for providing this insightful analysis. This is clearly a complex and evolving situation with far-reaching implications.
