Great powers have historically relied on military bases, forward deployments and strategic platforms to project power across continents and pursue political, geostrategic, economic and military objectives. The United States, which remains the world’s predominant global military power, has built an extensive network of bases, naval forces, aircraft carriers, strategic bombers and long-range missile systems to maintain its ability to operate far beyond its borders.
This global posture allows Washington to respond rapidly to crises and protect its interests across multiple theatres. But it also creates a significant vulnerability: when a major base, naval platform or other critical military asset is damaged or neutralised, US military capacity in that region can be affected until repairs, maintenance and the necessary recovery operations are completed.
The war with Iran has brought this vulnerability into sharper focus. In the initial stages of the conflict, the United States operated closely with Israel, coordinating military planning, intelligence and logistics. American forces employed drones, Patriot air-defence systems and long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from land and naval platforms. The US Air Force also deployed aircraft from the continental United States, aircraft carriers and military installations across the Middle East.
The scale of America’s military commitment to the region illustrates the strategic challenge facing Washington. Any prolonged concentration of forces in one theatre inevitably creates difficult choices elsewhere, particularly when the United States must maintain a global military presence.
Aircraft carriers under pressure
The US Navy is legally required to maintain a fleet of at least 11 active aircraft carrier groups, and its nuclear-powered carriers form the backbone of American global power projection. These vessels routinely operate across the 5th Fleet area in the Middle East, the 6th Fleet in Europe and the Mediterranean, and the 7th Fleet in the Indo-Pacific.
As of August 2026, however, a significant proportion of America’s carrier strength has been concentrated in the Middle East in support of Operation ‘Epic Fury’. This concentration creates both strategic trade-offs and rotational challenges for the US Navy.
The USS Abraham Lincoln, for example, has reportedly spent more than 260 consecutive days operating in the Arabian Sea in combat operations against Iran. Reports of low morale among personnel, linked to extended deployment periods and shortages of rest and basic facilities, together with damage attributed to Iranian drone attacks, have added to the pressure. The carrier is now preparing to return home after being relieved by the USS George Washington, which is moving towards the Gulf from East Asia.
The USS George H.W. Bush is also involved in operations against Iran, including enforcement of a naval blockade. With three carrier groups committed to the Middle East, the concentration of American naval power in the region inevitably creates greater vulnerability elsewhere. East Asia, in particular, faces a temporary reduction in available US carrier strength.
The remaining carriers are distributed across training, maintenance, upgrades and deployment preparations. USS Theodore Roosevelt is conducting training off the US West Coast, while USS Nimitz is approaching retirement following its farewell ‘Southern Seas’ tour around South America. USS Dwight D. Eisenhower is engaged in routine training and sustainment.
USS Carl Vinson is available for post-deployment operations after completing Pacific rotations, while USS Gerald R. Ford is undergoing scheduled maintenance and upgrades following operations in the Mediterranean. USS Ronald Reagan is undergoing planned maintenance at Norfolk after returning from Japan, and USS Harry Truman is preparing for deployment.
USS John C. Stennis is undergoing a lengthy Refuelling and Complex Overhaul, while the next-generation USS John F. Kennedy is completing sea trials and is expected to eventually replace USS Nimitz.
In practical terms, the concentration of carriers in the Iran theatre leaves Washington with limited immediate flexibility. The two carriers operating in the Gulf can accommodate up to roughly 90 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters combined, although routine deployments generally carry between 60 and 75 aircraft per carrier. This allows sufficient space for maintenance, weapons loading and efficient launch-and-recovery operations.
A carrier’s sortie-generation capability is another crucial factor. Based on approximately 75% aircraft availability to account for maintenance, rearming, crew rest and other operational requirements, a carrier could generate roughly 250 sorties over a 24-hour period under demanding combat conditions.
A vast but exposed network of bases
Aircraft carriers are only one component of America’s global military architecture. The United States operates approximately 750 military bases and installations across around 80 countries and territories. These facilities support American trade routes, military operations and security partnerships, including NATO.
The largest concentration of US military infrastructure lies in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. In the Indo-Pacific, US forces operate through a network of installations across Japan, South Korea, Guam and other locations. Yokosuka Naval Base is home to the US 7th Fleet, while Kadena Air Base provides a major airpower hub. Camp Humphreys in South Korea is the largest US overseas military installation and a major centre for American Army operations.
Guam, a US territory, is another critical strategic hub, with facilities including Guam Naval Base and Andersen Air Force Base. Its geographic position makes the island particularly important for American operations across the Indo-Pacific.
In Europe, US military infrastructure supports NATO’s collective defence and provides essential logistics and airlift capabilities. Ramstein Air Base in Germany serves as a major transportation and logistical hub, while Aviano and Vicenza in Italy support American air and ground forces. Rota Naval Station in Spain facilitates maritime operations in the Atlantic and Mediterranean.
The Middle East remains another critical component of the network. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar serves as a major US military facility and a forward headquarters for US Central Command. Bahrain hosts the US 5th Fleet, which oversees maritime security and shipping routes in and around the Gulf.
Beyond the Middle East, Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti provides the United States with a strategically important foothold in the Horn of Africa and supports operations aimed at protecting shipping through the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait.
Iran’s strategy puts the network under pressure
Iran’s ability to strike American military infrastructure across the region has introduced a new dimension to the strategic equation. According to the claims cited in the analysis, Iranian forces have launched more than 2,000 ballistic and cruise missiles and conducted extensive drone operations, striking at least 20 US military sites across eight countries.
The reported attacks have included facilities in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Iranian strikes are also claimed to have damaged or destroyed more than 228 military structures and pieces of equipment, with estimated losses of around $13 billion.
Beyond the direct physical damage, the strategic consequences may be even more significant. Evacuations from bases, the relocation of personnel and the movement of military staff into hotels and alternative facilities have demonstrated that the American regional infrastructure is not immune to sustained attacks.
For decades, the US military presence in the Middle East has rested partly on the assumption that its extensive network of bases and forward positions would provide strategic depth and operational flexibility. Iran’s ability to reach multiple facilities across the region challenges that assumption.
The issue is therefore not simply how many aircraft carriers, aircraft or bases the United States possesses. It is also whether those assets can remain operational and adequately protected when an adversary can attack multiple points across an interconnected network.
A strategic rethink?
The conflict could ultimately force Washington to reconsider the size and structure of its military presence in the Gulf. If the costs of protecting widely dispersed bases and personnel continue to rise, the Pentagon may have to weigh the advantages of maintaining a large permanent footprint against the vulnerabilities that such a presence creates.
A reduction in the American military footprint would not necessarily mean an end to US influence in the Middle East. Washington could increasingly rely on mobile forces, naval assets, long-range aviation, distributed facilities and regional partnerships rather than maintaining large concentrations of personnel at vulnerable fixed installations.
For Iran, meanwhile, the ability to threaten American assets across several countries offers a form of strategic leverage that does not require matching the United States platform for platform. The effectiveness of such a strategy will ultimately depend on Iran’s ability to sustain its attacks and on Washington’s capacity to repair, reinforce and adapt its regional posture.
The broader lesson is that global military power comes with global vulnerabilities. America’s network of bases, carriers and strategic platforms gives it unparalleled reach, but the same network also creates multiple points that an adversary can target. The Iran war has therefore become more than a regional confrontation: it is testing the resilience, flexibility and long-term sustainability of the United States’ global military posture.
Shafaqna Pakistan
pakistan.shafaqna.com
Note: Shafaqna do not endorse the views expressed in the article
