SUMMARY
U.S. military and intelligence officials are quietly discussing whether the United States should reduce the number of troops, intelligence personnel and permanent facilities it maintains across the Middle East if the Trump administration succeeds in ending the war with Iran. The discussions reflect growing concerns about the vulnerability and cost of American bases after repeated Iranian attacks, while also raising a larger question about whether Washington should move away from the expansive post-9/11 security model and rely more on regional partners, rotational forces and rapidly deployable capabilities.
Inside the U.S. military and intelligence communities, officials are quietly examining a question that has shaped American foreign policy for a quarter of a century: how much of a permanent U.S. presence does Washington still need in the Middle East?
According to six sources familiar with the discussions, officials have been considering cuts to the number of American personnel and facilities stationed across the region if President Donald Trump's administration succeeds in bringing the conflict with Iran to an end.
No formal decision has been announced, and the discussions do not amount to an approved U.S. withdrawal. But the conversations point to a potentially significant change in American strategy after years of wars, counterterrorism operations and military deployments throughout the Middle East. 0
A Strategy Built After 9/11
The American military and intelligence footprint in the Middle East expanded dramatically following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The United States established and expanded bases, intelligence networks and military operations across the region as Washington launched the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and later expanded campaigns against terrorist organizations in countries including Syria, Yemen and Libya.
The result was a vast security infrastructure designed around counterterrorism, regional deterrence, intelligence collection and the ability to launch military operations quickly.
But 25 years after the September 11 attacks, U.S. officials are increasingly questioning whether that model remains appropriate for the threats Washington expects to face in the coming decades.
The Iran War Exposed the Vulnerability of U.S. Bases
The recent conflict with Iran has provided a powerful reason for that reassessment.
American installations in countries including Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have been targeted by Iranian drones and missiles during the conflict.
The attacks demonstrated that large, visible military facilities can become attractive targets during a major regional confrontation. They also forced the Pentagon to consider how much it should spend rebuilding facilities damaged during the war.
Two sources told CNN that the military is examining the possibility of moving some installations underground to better protect personnel and equipment from future missile and drone attacks.
The concept of hardened or underground facilities is not new. What has changed is the urgency surrounding the idea after Iran demonstrated the ability to threaten American installations across the region. 1
About 50,000 U.S. Troops Remain in the Region
The discussions about reducing America's footprint are taking place while the United States still maintains a substantial military presence in the Middle East.
About 50,000 American troops are currently deployed across the region, alongside major naval and air assets. The force includes two aircraft carriers and more than a dozen guided-missile destroyers, according to the CNN reporting that triggered the latest discussion. 2
That means any reduction would not represent the immediate disappearance of American military power from the region.
Instead, officials are considering whether a smaller permanent footprint could be combined with the ability to rapidly send additional forces when a crisis develops.
The Pentagon Is Considering Several Options
Sources said the military has developed several possible approaches for changing the American force structure in the Middle East as early as next year.
One possibility is reducing the number of troops permanently stationed in certain Gulf countries while retaining access to important bases and airfields.
Another option would involve keeping personnel and equipment in the United States and sending them to the Middle East only when specific missions require them.
That model could allow Washington to maintain military reach without carrying the full cost and security risks associated with maintaining large permanent installations overseas.
A recent analysis by the Stimson Center similarly distinguished between outright strategic retrenchment and a redesign of America's regional military posture. Under the latter model, Washington could reduce the size and concentration of permanent bases while preserving access, pre-positioned equipment, naval forces, intelligence links and rapid-reinforcement capabilities. 3
The CIA Is Facing a Similar Question
The debate is not limited to the Pentagon.
Officials within the intelligence community are also examining whether some missions that traditionally required permanent personnel and facilities in the Middle East could be carried out differently.
For example, sensitive personnel and equipment could remain based in the United States and travel to the region for individual missions before returning home.
The approach would represent a major change from the post-9/11 model, when the CIA expanded its regional presence and developed a much larger paramilitary capability closely integrated with military operations.
The agency has also begun returning some officers who had been sent home during the most intense phase of the fighting earlier this year, illustrating the difficulty of determining how much of the existing infrastructure will ultimately be necessary. 4
Some Damaged Facilities May Not Be Rebuilt
One of the most consequential possibilities under discussion is that Washington may simply decide not to rebuild some facilities that were badly damaged or destroyed during the conflict.
That decision could be influenced by both strategic and financial considerations.
If American officials conclude that a particular installation is too vulnerable, too expensive to repair or no longer essential to U.S. strategy, rebuilding it may make less sense than moving the capability elsewhere.
Pentagon officials have not publicly provided a final estimate for the cost of repairing damaged overseas installations. Pentagon Comptroller Jules “Jay” Hurst III previously said the cost would depend partly on decisions about America's future military posture in the Middle East. 5
Trump's Preference for Fewer Overseas Forces
The discussions also reflect President Trump's long-standing preference for reducing America's military commitments abroad.
Sources familiar with the internal conversations say officials are trying to anticipate what the president may want once the Iran conflict ends.
That creates an unusual situation for military planners. The United States still has forces conducting operations and protecting strategic interests in the region, while officials are simultaneously preparing for the possibility that the president will want a significantly smaller long-term footprint.
There is currently no formal order directing a comprehensive force-posture review, according to the reporting.
Washington Wants Regional Allies to Do More
A smaller U.S. military presence would also place greater responsibility on America's partners in the Gulf and elsewhere in the Middle East.
Senior Pentagon officials have privately indicated that they want to reduce American troop levels in several Gulf countries as part of a broader effort to shift more of the regional defense burden onto local partners.
The strategy would not necessarily mean abandoning U.S. allies. Instead, Washington could encourage countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and others to assume greater responsibility for their own territorial defense while the United States concentrates on intelligence, strategic deterrence, naval power and rapid reinforcement.
The Strait of Hormuz Remains Critical
One reason a complete American withdrawal remains unlikely is the importance of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.
The waterway is one of the world's most strategically important energy corridors. Any major disruption can affect global oil supplies, shipping costs and energy prices.
The United States therefore has a strong interest in maintaining the ability to protect shipping and respond quickly to threats in the region.
This is why the emerging debate is more complicated than simply deciding whether to leave or stay.
The more likely question is what type of presence the United States needs.
From Permanent Bases to Flexible Power
A redesigned American strategy could rely less on large permanent installations and more on mobile and flexible military capabilities.
Aircraft could operate from a smaller number of hardened locations. Naval forces could provide a major part of the U.S. regional presence from the sea. Intelligence networks could operate through smaller facilities and partnerships. Troops could be deployed from outside the region when necessary.
Such an approach could make American forces harder to target while preserving the ability to respond rapidly to a crisis.
But it would also involve risks.
The Risk of Going Too Far
Reducing the American footprint could save money and lower the vulnerability of U.S. troops, but a smaller presence could also reduce Washington's ability to respond immediately to a new crisis.
Regional allies may question whether the United States would arrive quickly enough if they faced a major threat.
Iran and other adversaries could also interpret a reduction in permanent forces as evidence that Washington is retreating from the region.
That is why military planners are likely to place considerable importance on maintaining access to bases even if fewer American troops permanently occupy them.
The Bigger Strategic Shift
The debate is ultimately about more than the Middle East.
For years, American defense planners have increasingly focused on competition with China and Russia. A large permanent commitment to the Middle East consumes military resources that could otherwise be used for the Indo-Pacific and other strategic priorities.
A smaller Middle East footprint could therefore give Washington greater flexibility to concentrate on what many U.S. officials regard as longer-term strategic competitors.
At the same time, the experience of the Iran conflict shows why Washington cannot simply ignore the region.
No Withdrawal Has Been Ordered
It is important to distinguish between internal planning and government policy.
The discussions reported by CNN do not mean that the United States has decided to withdraw from the Middle East.
The military is still conducting operations in the region, protecting American interests and maintaining major forces there. Some CIA personnel are also returning after being moved away during the most intense fighting.
Any future reduction would therefore likely be gradual and carefully designed rather than an immediate departure. 6
What Comes After the Post-9/11 Era?
The central question facing Washington is whether the security architecture created after September 11, 2001, still matches the threats of 2026 and beyond.
The world has changed considerably since the early years of the war on terror. Drone warfare, long-range missiles, cyberattacks, artificial intelligence and great-power competition have transformed the security environment.
The United States is now trying to balance several competing demands: protecting its allies, deterring Iran, securing important waterways, countering terrorism and maintaining enough military power to respond to crises while also preparing for competition with China and Russia.
Conclusion
The quiet discussions inside the U.S. military and intelligence communities could eventually lead to one of the most significant changes in America's Middle East strategy in decades.
If the Iran conflict ends, Washington may have an opportunity to rethink the enormous military and intelligence infrastructure built after the September 11 attacks. That could mean fewer permanent troops and facilities, greater reliance on regional partners, hardened bases and a stronger emphasis on forces that can move rapidly into the region when needed.
But the United States is unlikely to simply disappear from the Middle East. The region remains strategically important because of its energy resources, shipping routes, alliances and security threats.
The real change may therefore be not whether America leaves the Middle East, but how it remains there.
After 25 years of post-9/11 intervention, Washington appears to be considering a different model: a smaller permanent footprint, greater reliance on partners and the ability to deliver overwhelming force when necessary without maintaining the same level of permanent infrastructure.
Daily Touch Insights
