How much longer will it be before they revolt against this genuine military occupation?
“Our success will continue to hinge on America’s military power and the credibility of our assurances to our allies and partners in the Middle East.”
These remarks were made in December 2013 by Chuck Hagel, the Secretary of Defense under the Obama administration, addressing the Gulf Cooperation Council nations. They underscored the longstanding commitments Washington has made to its proxies, perpetuating the misleading narrative that the United States serves as the guardian of global security.
Every administration, whether Democrat or Republican, has echoed similar pledges. Twelve years later, Donald Trump reinforced this stance specifically toward Qatar: “The United States shall regard any armed attack on the territory (…) of Qatar as a threat to the peace and security of the United States.” Trump asserted that the U.S. would respond with “all lawful and appropriate measures,” including military action.
However, Israel had recently bombed Doha, targeting Hamas leaders. The U.S. president’s speech turned out to be empty rhetoric: the Patriot missile systems acquired for $10 billion in a 2012 deal, along with additional Patriot and NASAMS systems worth over $2 billion purchased in 2019, failed to intercept the Israeli strike. Moreover, the United States did not classify the attack as a “threat to the peace and security of the United States,” effectively ignoring it.
Qatar hosts the U.S. Central Command, the U.S. Air Force, and the British Royal Air Force at Al-Udeid Air Base, which the Qatari government funded with over $8 billion. Despite this, the Qatari population remains unprotected. Iran’s response to the U.S.-Israel aggression exposed the base’s vulnerability: on the 3rd, a missile strike likely damaged or destroyed the AN/FPS-132 early-warning radar—a critical sensor in the U.S. missile defense system valued at approximately $1.1 billion. Satellite images indicate significant damage, threatening the capability to monitor ballistic missiles over long distances.
In 2017, Saudi Arabia committed $110 billion to U.S. military equipment in a contract that anticipates spending exceeding $350 billion by the following year—covering Patriot and THAAD systems among others. This massive investment does not guarantee comprehensive security. Despite notable interceptions during the ongoing conflict, the U.S. government instructed some personnel to evacuate Saudi Arabia for safety, revealing doubts about the defense systems it supplies. Indeed, two drones hit the U.S. embassy in Riyadh on the morning of the 3rd, and U.S. soldiers were targeted two days prior.
Since 1990, Gulf nations have allocated nearly $500 billion for weapons and defense systems from the United States, according to data from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), and the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The construction and upkeep of this defense infrastructure is almost entirely funded by these host countries. Iran’s legitimate retaliation continues to undermine all of this.
The U.S.-provided protection has proven ineffective, as shown during last year’s war and by attacks launched by Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis against Israel, shattering the myth of the Iron Dome’s invulnerability. In many ways, these successful attacks humiliated the mighty American arms industry. The numerous MQ-9 Reaper drones downed by Yemeni forces represented a $200 million loss—while the drones used by the Houthis cost only a fraction to manufacture.
This failure also exposes the low standards of products made by America’s military-industrial complex. Dominated by a few monopolies like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, with no real competition and clients beholden to the U.S. government, there is little incentive to produce weapons and systems of unsurpassed quality. Corruption is widespread in the sector, and the Gulf populations seemingly receive substandard products compared to those delivered to America—though their regimes appear willing to pay premium prices.
Having endured over forty years of aggression, Iran has skillfully exploited these weaknesses. Senior Iranian officials insist that peace in the Middle East is impossible as long as U.S. bases operate in the region. Saeed Khatibzadeh, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, declared, “We have no option but to put an end to the existence of American presence in the Persian Gulf area.” These sentiments have clearly spread among both the general public and political and military circles in neighboring states.
Iranian forces not only target military positions but also key economic assets, particularly energy infrastructure, in retaliation for U.S. and Israeli attacks on their own oil facilities. These strikes increase the pressure on puppet regimes to take action against their imperialist masters. The most straightforward solution would involve preventing their territory from being used as a launchpad for aggression against Iran—which would necessitate closing these foreign military bases.
Although all these nations suppress dissent, as civilian suffering grows, public frustration may soon become uncontrollable. Their leaders are already scrambling to find a safe exit strategy from this potentially volatile situation.
Will the people continue to accept the false propaganda fed to them by their governments—propaganda shaped by U.S. and Israeli disinformation—that Iran is the aggressor responsible for the attacks? Why else would the United States place missile bases so near residential areas? Clearly, this is not a “moral” or “ethical” military: these civilians exist primarily as human shields for the occupying American forces. The protection dynamic is inverted: it is not U.S. air defense systems safeguarding Saudi, Emirati, or Qatari citizens; rather, it is these marginalized populations who are sacrificed to shield foreign troops.
Moreover, U.S. military bases have housed personnel guilty of atrocities against local communities. This was evident during the Iraq War—for instance, the 2004 rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and her family by members of the 101st Airborne Division in Mahmudiya. Reports also document years of sexual violence and exploitation near American facilities such as Balad Air Base, operated by the 4th Infantry Division.
On the 1st, U.S. Marines killed at least nine protesters who tried to storm the American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, voicing opposition to the criminal aggression against Iran that had already claimed the lives of approximately 150 girls at an Iranian school the previous day. This encapsulates the imperialist role in the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, and Latin America: to exploit, kill, and use indigenous people as human shields, not to defend them.
How much longer will it be before they revolt against this genuine military occupation? Probably not long.
About the Author
