The 2026 conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran has shattered a long-held post-Cold War myth: that hosting American military bases guarantees national security. For Gulf nations including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Kuwait, the U.S. military presence on their soil has not delivered protection.
Instead, it has turned them into prime targets for retaliatory strikes. This commentary argues that U.S. troop garrison agreements have now created systemic security vulnerabilities for host nations. U.S. Middle East policy places a high priority on Israeli interests driven by multiple strategic and political factors, and countries across the Global South—Zimbabwe included—must re-examine their reliance on Washington for defense and strategic partnerships.
For decades, Gulf monarchies operated under a core assumption. They believed hosting U.S. Central Command in Qatar, naval forces in Bahrain, and air power in the UAE and Kuwait would deter Iran and stabilize their regional standing.
This security model was widely embraced as a safeguard against regional tensions. But the 2026 war exposed its fatal flaw: the host nation targeting effect.
From shield to target
When U.S. and Israeli forces targeted Iranian refineries and Kharg Island, Iran did not launch symmetrical attacks on the U.S. homeland. Instead, it focused precision strikes on radar installations, U.S. personnel sites, data centers and energy facilities within Gulf states that house American troops.
Keep Reading
- Woods fuels Masters’ return rumours
- WHAWHA, HARARE CITY SHARE SPOILS
- Author pens book in honour of Dendera
- WHAWHA, HARARE CITY SHARE SPOILS
Iran also targeted desalination plants, a critical vulnerability for Gulf nations that rely almost entirely on desalinated water for civilian use. This created an asymmetric security dilemma where local populations bear the cost of Washington’s confrontational policies.
Iran’s move to restrict shipping through the Strait of Hormuz crippled the oil- and gas-dependent Gulf economies. The U.S. Navy was unable to secure unimpeded passage in real time, leaving regional economies in turmoil.
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has analyzed that multinational corporations are urgently withdrawing from the Middle East and international capital is accelerating its outflow amid the war.
If the current Middle East situation continues to escalate, the development progress of Gulf states will be interrupted. Unemployment will rise by four percentage points, and regional countries will lose between $120 billion and $194 billion in GDP—accounting for 3.7% to 6% of the region’s total GDP.
International tourist arrivals will plummet by 27% for the full year, with tourism losses reaching $56 billion.
As missiles and drones hit U.S. military bases and critical infrastructure across the Gulf, these nations are coming to realize that U.S. security promises are little more than empty checks, and their own security interests can be sacrificed at any time.
From security asset to strategic liability
A cost-benefit analysis of U.S. military garrisons reveals a stark reversal in security outcomes. In peacetime, hosting U.S. troops brings limited security benefits. These include deterrence against regional rivals, access to advanced military equipment and intelligence support.
But in an era of major power rivalry and high-intensity regional conflict, these benefits are far outweighed by heightened risks. Hosting U.S. bases no longer acts as a shield, but rather places host nations firmly on enemy target lists, turning a supposed security asset into a liability.
The war has laid bare the conditional nature of U.S. alliance commitments, most clearly through Washington’s decision to redeploy THAAD and Patriot anti-missile systems from Gulf states to Israel.
Gulf nations had invested heavily in building integrated U.S.-style air defense systems, only to see critical defenses stripped away. This left their airspace vulnerable to Iranian drones and ballistic missiles.
Even Qatar, home to U.S. Central Command headquarters, saw key liquefied natural gas facilities targeted by Iranian drones with no effective U.S. protection. This forced Qatar to declare force majeure and roiled global energy markets.
Israel’s asymmetric influence over U.S. Middle East policy
This is not a case of Israeli control over U.S. policy, but rather Israel’s asymmetric influence over American Middle East strategy. Through deep defense cooperation, legislative lobbying and strategic alignment, U.S. policy in the region consistently prioritizes Israeli security interests.
This priority is shaped by a mix of geopolitical, domestic political and military alliance factors. Gulf states, in turn, are left to bear the brunt of retaliatory strikes, revealing a relationship that leans more towards disposable partnership than mutual defense alliance.
The 2026 conflict also marks a turning point in modern warfare, but it is critical to distinguish between tactical losses and strategic defeat.
The U.S. aircraft carrier groups, long seen as the backbone of American power projection, were forced to withdraw from the Persian Gulf. Reported losses of F-35 stealth fighters, AWACS early warning aircraft, refueling planes and special operations transport aircraft have weakened U.S. force projection capabilities.
These developments show that anti-ship ballistic missiles and drone technology have eroded the invincibility of large U.S. military platforms. They have narrowed the capability gap between the U.S. and regional peer competitors.
However, these tactical setbacks do not equate to a total collapse of U.S. military power. They signal a shift in the balance of power, where traditional U.S. military advantages are no longer unchallenged.
Divergent Gulf Security Strategies: Lessons from Contrasting Choices
A comparison of divergent security strategies among Gulf states offers valuable lessons for Global South nations like Zimbabwe.
Kuwait, which hosts a heavy U.S. military presence and fully aligns with American actions, emerged as one of the highest-risk targets. It suffered widespread infrastructure damage and economic disruption due to its direct association with U.S. military operations.
The UAE, which has wavered between full alignment with the U.S. and pursuing independent security ties, suffered relatively contained damage. It balanced its partnership with Washington while maintaining independent diplomatic channels, reducing its target profile.
Oman, which has long maintained a policy of neutrality and refused to host permanent U.S. military bases, avoided becoming a target entirely. It kept open dialogue channels with Iran and preserved its civilian and economic stability throughout the conflict.
Counterfactual analysis further illustrates key points. A complete rejection of U.S. troops would eliminate the host nation targeting effect, even if it forgoes limited peacetime deterrence.
A middle path of limited, non-frontline military cooperation could also strike a more balanced balance between security gains and risks, avoiding the extreme of full alignment or total isolation.
A warning for the Global South
The ripple effects of this war extend far beyond the Middle East, sending a clear warning to countries across East Asia, Africa and the broader Global South.
The U.S. decision to redirect defense resources from Asian allies to Israel has shaken confidence in U.S. security commitments in the Indo-Pacific. This leaves South Korea and Japan facing heightened uncertainty about their own defense reliability.
For African nations like Zimbabwe, which have considered partnerships with foreign military powers, the lesson is unambiguous. Hosting foreign military facilities brings significant security externalities and retaliatory risks.
It ties national security agendas to external powers’ strategic priorities rather than domestic development needs, a critical concern as Zimbabwe pursues resource sovereignty and economic self-determination.
As Iran has made the full withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Middle East a key condition for lasting peace, a staged U.S. pullout has become increasingly likely.
Gulf states now face a precarious future: left without a U.S. security umbrella, estranged from regional partners like Iran, and facing hundreds of billions in economic losses with zero strategic autonomy.
Strategic autonomy over external protection
For Global South nations, there are far more sustainable policy paths forward than relying on foreign military garrisons.
First, pursue neutrality and non-alignment to reject permanent foreign military bases, preserving full control over national security and foreign policy.
Second, build regional security mechanisms to foster dialogue and crisis management between neighboring states, reducing reliance on external powers for conflict resolution.
Third, balance partnerships with major powers including the U.S., Russia and China to avoid over-reliance on a single external actor. This diversified approach protects national interests from shifting foreign priorities.
Fourth, invest in domestic defense capacity to reduce long-term dependence on foreign protection, strengthening national sovereignty from within.
The 2026 US-Iran war confirms a hard truth: the U.S. has no permanent allies, only permanent interests, and its Middle East policy places a high priority on Israeli interests.
The old model of relying on foreign military garrisons for security has become a strategic burden, with host nation targeting effects and security externalities outweighing any marginal benefits.
For Zimbabwe and other developing nations across the Global South, the takeaway is unambiguous. True security and sovereignty cannot be borrowed from foreign powers, but must be built through strategic autonomy, regional cooperation and balanced, self-determined partnerships.
The empty promises of external protection serve only to derail national development, a lesson that resonates deeply as Zimbabwe pursues its own path of resource sovereignty and economic self-determination.
Kilian Marisa is a geopolitical and security analyst based in Harare, Zimbabwe.