Hawzah News Agency- US military bases in the Persian Gulf were established with the aim of containing Iran, and today they have turned their host nations into partners in the threat against the Islamic Republic. With the continuation of this situation, Iran, based on legitimate defense and the principles of international law, will be compelled to take decisive measures to eliminate these threats, including territorial seizure if necessary.
Preamble: From Order-Building to Threat-Building
The Persian Gulf region has long been a focal point for major powers due to its geopolitical position, vast energy resources, and significance in global trade. Following the end of the Cold War, and particularly after the first Gulf War in 1991, the United States significantly expanded its military presence in the region by concluding bilateral defense agreements and establishing a network of military bases in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf. While this presence was justified under the banner of ensuring regional security and stability, its essence has always been tied to Washington's strategic objectives of containing and controlling regional powers, especially the Islamic Republic of Iran. The bitter experience of recent wars demonstrated that these bases not only failed to serve as a deterrent but acted as a "magnet for attacks," dragging host nations into a war in which they played no initiating role. This piece examines the history, objectives, and legal and political consequences of these bases, and presents a framework for Iran's response to the threats stationed in its neighborhood.
Part One: The History and Objectives of US Military Base Deployment in the Persian Gulf
The Roots of Presence: From Britain's Withdrawal to the Gulf War
The US military presence in the Persian Gulf did not materialize overnight. The story began in 1971, when, following Britain's withdrawal from east of the Suez, the US Navy set foot in Bahrain, utilizing military facilities left behind by the former colonial power. However, the main turning point in the formation of America's network of bases in the region was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. This event paved the way for the conclusion of formal defense pacts with the Arab states of the Persian Gulf and the permanent stationing of American forces in these countries.
The Network of Military Bases: The Operational Arm of the Containment Strategy
By establishing or gaining access to numerous military facilities in the countries on the southern rim of the Persian Gulf, the United States has formed a vast network of military bases, the most important of which are:
- Bahrain: The "Al-Jufair" Naval Base, which, after Bahrain's independence in 1971 and the granting of its concession to the US by local rulers, became the main headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet. This base serves as the command center for US naval forces in the Middle East and is considered one of America's most important naval bases in the region. According to some reports, the expanse of American bases in Bahrain covers roughly one-third of the country's territory.
- Kuwait: Following the first Gulf War and the liberation of Kuwait, the United States signed a 10-year defense pact with the country and took control of the "Ali Al-Salem" and "Ahmed Al-Jaber" airbases. As one of America's close allies, Kuwait plays a key role in implementing the containment policies against Iran in the northern Persian Gulf.
- Qatar: The largest US airbase in the region, namely "Al-Udeid" (Al-Obaid) Air Base, is located in Qatar, hosting thousands of military personnel and the most advanced American fighter jets. Qatar is also recognized as a key player in political mediations and logistical support for US military operations.
- United Arab Emirates: The "Al-Dhafra" Air Base in the UAE is another key American base in the region, playing a role in air operations against regional targets and securing the skies of the Persian Gulf.
- Saudi Arabia: Despite the absence of a formal defense pact with the US (due to internal opposition), Saudi Arabia has long hosted important military facilities such as "Prince Sultan" Air Base near Riyadh.
- The United States has also made arrangements for access to military facilities in other Persian Gulf monarchies, including Oman.
Strategic Objectives: From Providing Security to Containing Iran
Washington's stated objectives for deploying these bases have been to provide security for the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, guarantee the free flow of energy, and combat terrorism. However, a thorough analysis of the security arrangements and military pacts reveals that the central axis of this strategy has been the "containment of the Islamic Republic of Iran" as America's greatest regional rival. The network of military bases, as the operational arm of this strategy, pursues several specific goals:
- Creating a ring of encirclement through military, intelligence, and political means around Iran's borders.
- Deterring Iran from any military action against America's regional allies or its interests in the Persian Gulf.
- Providing support for military operations, using these bases as launch pads for aerial and missile strikes against Iran or other regional countries if necessary.
- Reassuring allies by strengthening the confidence of Arab allies in America's ability to defend them against regional threats.
Part Two: Defense Pacts and the Legal Framework of the US Military Presence
The Nature of the Pacts: Bilateral but Unequal
The legal foundations of the US military presence in the Persian Gulf littoral states are primarily based on bilateral defense agreements. These pacts, mostly concluded after the 1991 Gulf War, permit the United States to use the soil of these countries as military bases or for the stationing and transit of its forces. The main provisions of these pacts include:
- Permission to station a certain number of military forces on the host nation's soil.
- Authorization to stockpile weapons and military equipment on the host nation's territory.
- Facilitating US access to the airports, ports, and other military and civilian facilities of the host country.
- In some cases, such as the pact with Kuwait, the US has committed to defending the host country against external attacks.
Violation of International Obligations: The Responsibility of Host Nations
Under the rules of international law, states are obliged to prevent the use of their territory against the territorial integrity of other countries. This obligation, rooted in the principle of "international responsibility of states," also applies to the countries hosting US military bases. Should these countries permit their military bases to be used for military strikes against Iran, they will be recognized as complicit in aggression and will bear international responsibility.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, in its official statements, has repeatedly pointed to this issue and urged regional countries not to allow their soil to be used as a launch pad for war against Iran. However, recent wars have shown that these bases, despite the apparent reluctance of some host nations to participate directly in a war, have been targeted as military objectives by Iran, dragging these countries into a costly conflict.
Part Three: US Strategies for Containing Iran: From Imposed War to Ring of Fire
The Failure of Direct War: Turning to Containment and Proxy Warfare
After failing to topple the Islamic Republic system through the 8-year imposed war (waged with full Western support for Saddam's Ba'athist regime in Iraq), the United States gradually shifted its strategy from "direct confrontation" to "hybrid containment." This new strategy, launched in the early 1990s under the "Dual Containment" policy against Iran and Iraq, focused on creating a military, economic, and intelligence encirclement around Iran. The primary objective of this strategy was to contain Iran's regional power, prevent the expansion of its influence, and ultimately set the stage for behavioral change or even regime change.
The Ring of Fire: From the Taliban to Daesh
Within the framework of this containment strategy, the US and its regional allies engaged in creating and strengthening extremist and terrorist groups on Iran's periphery, which some analysts refer to as a "ring of fire."
- Taliban and Al-Qaeda: Although there are varying narratives regarding the extent of America's direct role in creating the Taliban, solid evidence indicates that Washington's policies in the 1980s to support the Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviet Union laid the groundwork for the formation of this group. Russia has explicitly claimed that the US created the Taliban, Daesh, and Al-Qaeda groups for its own geopolitical objectives. Following the 9/11 attacks, by invading Afghanistan and overthrowing the Taliban, the US, under the pretext of fighting terrorism, solidified its military presence on Iran's eastern border and remained in the country until 2021.
- Daesh: The emergence and expansion of Daesh in Iraq and Syria (2014-2017) also occurred under conditions that some analysts believe were facilitated by the regional policies of the US and its allies, including support for extremist groups to weaken regional governments. The objective of creating this turmoil, in addition to weakening the Axis of Resistance, was to create a buffer and insecure zone on Iran's western flank.
This strategy of "organized destabilization," although increasing pressure on Iran in the short term, led in the long run to the creation of a ring of fire around Iran, which had dire consequences for regional security, including the security of the Persian Gulf states themselves.
Part Four: Military Bases in Recent Wars: From Deterrence to Attack Magnet
The Inefficiency of Deterrence in Full-Scale War
For decades, it was assumed that the US military presence in the region acted as a strong defensive shield, immunizing the Arab states of the Persian Gulf against external attacks. However, the recent wars (the 12-day and 39-day wars) clearly demonstrated that this assumption lost its effectiveness in the face of a full-scale conflict. Analysts at the Middle East Institute have explicitly stated that the deterrence equation in the Persian Gulf monarchies, which for decades rested on the US military presence, failed against a full-scale conflict.
Attack Magnet: Host Nations on the Front Lines
During these wars, not only were US military bases targeted by direct Iranian strikes, but the civilian and critical infrastructure of host nations, including energy pipelines, hotels, civilian airports, and desalination plants, were also struck. This approach, known as the "Horizontal Escalation" strategy, was designed to impose maximum pressure on the global economy and the Persian Gulf states themselves to compel the United States to end the war.
The most important consequence of this development is that host nations, regardless of whether they themselves hosted US bases, became viable targets for Iran due to being in the alliance system with the United States. In other words, these bases not only failed to deter but acted as a "magnet for attacks," directly dragging host nations into a proxy war they neither had a role in nor wanted.
Part Five: Iran and the Right to Legitimate Defense Against Stationed Threats
Fundamental Change of Circumstances
The security environment of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz has undergone fundamental changes since the onset of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the current situation, the underlying circumstances governing the legal regime of the region, which required a minimum of stability and security to guarantee safe passage, have been severely disrupted. One of the most significant factors upsetting the previous order is the persistent disregard for the peremptory norm prohibiting aggression (enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter) by the US and its allies.
Based on the doctrine of "Fundamental Change of Circumstances" (also recognized in the law of treaties), states may, in situations where fundamental and unforeseen developments render initial obligations meaningless, adopt appropriate measures to adjust their rights and obligations. Within this framework, the Islamic Republic of Iran, as the coastal state, finds itself compelled to adopt practical and proportionate measures to manage the developments extending into maritime areas and to prevent the imposition of further dangers on ships and seafarers.
The Right to Legitimate Defense Against Imminent Attacks
Article 51 of the United Nations Charter recognizes the inherent right of legitimate defense against armed attack. Given the repeated attacks from military bases stationed in neighboring countries and the continuation of threats by the US and its allies, Iran can, citing "imminent threat" and observing the principles of proportionality and necessity, take necessary military action to neutralize these threats.
The International Responsibility of Host Nations
As previously noted, countries hosting US military bases are also responsible for the use of their territory against Iran. As long as these countries, of their own volition, permit the stationing and operation of threatening military bases, they are complicit in the violation of peremptory norms of international law, and the legitimacy of Iran's legitimate defense against these threats is justifiable.
In the next section, we will examine practical and legal solutions for neutralizing threats arising from military bases in the region, including the possibility of territorial seizure as a last resort, as well as the necessity for change in the rules of international law.
Part Six: Legal and Operational Framework for Neutralizing Threats
The International Responsibility of Host Nations: Complicity in Aggression
According to the peremptory norms of international law, any cooperation or assistance in aggression itself constitutes an "act of aggression." UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974), in Article 3, paragraph (g), explicitly states that "the action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State" constitutes an act of aggression in itself.
Accordingly, the Persian Gulf states that have placed their military bases at the disposal of attacks against Iran are not neutral states, but are recognized under international law as "complicit in aggression." From a legal standpoint, by violating the "obligation not to cooperate in the breach of peremptory norms" recognized in Article 41 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), these countries have committed a "serious breach" of peremptory norms.
The Doctrine of Fundamental Change of Circumstances
Since the onset of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the security environment of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz has undergone fundamental changes. In the current situation, the underlying circumstances governing the legal regime of the region, which required a minimum of stability and security to guarantee safe passage, have been severely disrupted.
Based on the doctrine of Fundamental Change of Circumstances, which is also recognized in the law of treaties, states may, in situations where fundamental and unforeseen developments render initial obligations meaningless, adopt appropriate measures to adjust their rights and obligations. Iran, as the coastal state, finds itself compelled to adopt practical and proportionate measures to manage the developments extending into maritime areas to prevent the imposition of further dangers on ships and seafarers.
The Framework of Legitimate Defense and "Iran's Rights" Over the Strait of Hormuz
Iran's Foreign Ministry, citing Article 51 of the UN Charter and the general principles of the law of the sea, emphasizes its legitimate right to defend against threats arising from military bases in the region.
Based on this legal framework:
- Iran's Coasts and the Strait of Hormuz: The Iranian government, based on the principles of sovereignty and its sovereign rights, has placed the management of the Strait of Hormuz on its agenda. According to the general principles of the law of the sea, including the 1982 Convention, only the right of "innocent passage" is recognized for foreign vessels. Any activity contrary to the peace and security of the coastal state falls outside the scope of these rights.
- Violation of Laws by Military Vessels: Under Article 30 of the 1982 Convention, any warship that does not comply with the laws of the coastal state may be required by the coastal state to leave the territorial sea immediately.
- Iran's Historic Rights: Given Iran's long-standing sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, international legal documents, including the rulings in the Qatar v. Bahrain case, have recognized "historic rights" as a valid title for sovereignty over maritime areas.
Iran's Military Responses and the Vulnerability of Host Nations
During the recent wars, by implementing the strategy of "Horizontal Escalation," Iran demonstrated that any attack from regional bases would be met with a widespread response beyond its own borders. According to credible reports, Iran's missile and drone strikes against 85 US military bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, and Qatar conveyed this message to host nations that "aligning with the enemy will impose heavy costs on their civilian and critical infrastructure." These strikes, which targeted energy pipelines, hotels, civilian airports, and desalination plants, showed that host nations, rather than enjoying a "defensive shield," have become "viable targets" that directly bear the costs of war.
Why Territorial Seizure Is the Last Resort
Given the failure of deterrence against continuous attacks from regional military bases, and the unwillingness of host nations to end their military cooperation with the US (stemming from these countries' deep political and security dependency on Washington), Iran faces limited options:
First, continuing limited responses. This option, implemented in the recent wars, while inflicting damage on the enemy, could not sustainably neutralize the threats, and host nations remained in cooperation with the enemy.
Second, waiting for a change in the approach of neighboring countries. Historical experience shows that the Arab states of the Persian Gulf will not cease their cooperation with the US without comprehensive pressure and a change in the balance of power.
Third, redefining security boundaries and imposing permanent control. Should host nations continuously and systematically collaborate in aggression against Iran, the legal framework of legitimate defense and the right to "countermeasures" can lay the groundwork for broader actions that permanently alter the regional security order.
Based on international legal practice, states facing a persistent threat whose source cannot be contained through other means may resort to active defensive measures. In the case of Iran, the territorial seizure of countries actively collaborating in aggression against it is justifiable within the framework of "legitimate defense," as this measure is the only sustainable solution to eliminate the military threats stationed in its neighborhood.
The Need for Change in the Rules of International Law
The current situation demonstrates that the traditional rules of international law, codified in the 20th century, do not adequately address novel threats such as "the establishment of threatening military bases in one's neighborhood" and "the use of third countries' territory for aggression." The existing legal order, under which major powers justify any aggression by broadly interpreting concepts such as "legitimate defense" and "imminent threat," requires fundamental revision.
International law must move toward recognizing the right to legitimate defense against stationed military threats and holding host nations effectively responsible for complicity in aggression. The international community must also shift from a passive approach to clear violations of peremptory norms to an active and deterrent stance.
Conclusion: The Necessity of a New Legal Discourse
Based on the principles of international law, the peremptory norms prohibiting aggression, and the doctrine of Fundamental Change of Circumstances, Iran has the right to take proportionate and deterrent measures to eliminate the persistent threats posed by US military bases in neighboring countries.
The legal framework of legitimate defense, articulated under Article 51 of the UN Charter and international jurisprudence (including the ICJ ruling in the Nicaragua case), allows Iran to take necessary action in response to armed attacks against military targets that have participated in aggression. Given that "Fundamental Change of Circumstances" is a recognized legal principle by which states may adjust their obligations in exceptional and critical situations, Iran can, by invoking this principle, justify and substantiate its new management of the Strait of Hormuz and proportionate defensive measures.
Ultimately, international law must be redefined so that countries hosting threatening military bases are recognized as "complicit in aggression" and bear responsibility for aggressive acts. Otherwise, countries whose security is exposed to persistent threats will have no choice but to adopt decisive measures, including territorial seizure, as this is the only sustainable solution to end the ring of fire around Iran.
The author, while emphasizing the need for legal scholars, particularly in the fields of international law and the law of war, to produce robust legal content, as well as to build discourse and create the necessary hegemony, believes that with Iran's entry into the club of the few superpowers in today's multipolar world, measures and approaches proportionate to this new situation have become essential. Furthermore, according to incontrovertible and irrefutable historical documents, everyone acknowledges Iran's territorial claim to regions such as Bahrain. On the other hand, given that these countries have been transformed into dens and primary bases for the enemies of our nation, and with no other way to eliminate the permanent and active threat posed by the American enemy, Iran will have no choice but to resort to territorial seizure. Naturally, this approach is considered separately from the approaches of expanding Islamic democracy and developing the pure Muhammadi school of thought across the geography of Islamic countries, and is not evaluated within the lexicon of salvific Jihads. Moreover, given that the US military bases have been the primary source and origin of American attacks on Iran, especially in the two recent imposed wars, and by normalizing relations with the longstanding enemy of our nation, namely the abominable and wretched Zionist regime, these countries have discarded all principles of good neighborliness and are considered allies of the definitive and eternal enemies of the Iranian people.
By Hojjat al-Islam Khodabakhsh Abdoli
Your Comment