MILITARY and naval bases have served as the backbone of great power strategy for centuries. They allow rapid response to crises, enable intelligence gathering, sustain long distance logistics and project influence far beyond a nation’s borders. In volatile regions like the Persian Gulf, they act as both shields and deterrents, safeguarding critical trade routes, energy supplies and allied interests. Yet, as history repeatedly shows, bases are double-edged swords, while promising security, they can also become lightning rods for conflict, entangling host nations in larger rivalries and complicating diplomacy. As per great naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan, a navy without overseas bases is like a bird unable to fly far from its perch. Out of 1250 military bases, the US dominates global foreign military presence, operating roughly 750 to 850 bases across 80 countries. While others lag far behind, the UK has 145 bases, Russia 10, France 3 and China just one, the US global footprint remains unmatched. To counter Iran and secure vital oil flows, thousands of American service members live and work in the Gulf countries. From 10,000 personnel at Qatar’s massive Al Udeid Air Base to the Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, US forces rely heavily on host nations like Kuwait, the UAE, Oman and Saudi Arabia.
For decades, US troops offered Gulf countries a comforting security umbrella, keeping oil flowing and deterring Iran. But the recent Iran-US/Israel war shattered that peace of mind. Instead of a shield, these bases became targets. Iranian retaliatory strikes multiple US and allied bases across the Gulf and these states suddenly found themselves on the front lines, with civilian areas endangered and economic activity disrupted. Even if current tensions ease, the shadow of potential future conflict will linger, damaging the Gulf’s reputation as a stable investment destination and peaceful atmosphere. This experience demands a more imaginative and balanced approach to regional security. Imagine a modest Chinese military or naval logistics facility in Iran, tied to the Belt and Road Initiative. This presence would give Tehran a powerful sense of security, signaling to Washington and Tel Aviv that any attack risks confronting with a major global power. No longer fearing regime change, Iranian leaders might move away from hostile posturing. This newfound strategic confidence could replace reflexive confrontation with a real opening for peaceful, constructive diplomacy.
From perspective of many regional countries, inviting a balancing power like China makes practical sense, especially since US and allied forces are unlikely to withdraw anytime soon. A Chinese footprint would also enhance protection of vital maritime routes for Beijing, reducing its vulnerability to potential blockades in the Strait of Malacca during crises. This, in turn, creates stronger incentives for all sides to avoid escalation and bring peace to the world. The true value lies in moving toward a multipolar security arrangement. Unlike the more interventionist US model, China’s overseas basing approach tends to be commercially driven and focused on protecting trade corridors rather than reshaping governments. With both American and Chinese interests invested in the uninterrupted flow of Gulf energy, the shared stake in stability will encourage mutual restraint and reduce the intensity of proxy conflicts.
Most importantly, such balance could help secure the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical energy chokepoint. Nearly 20% of global oil passes through this narrow passage. Recent disruptions have already demonstrated the devastating ripple effects: skyrocketing energy prices, supply shortages and economic pain felt from Europe to Asia. A more secure and confident Iran would have fewer incentives to threaten closure, benefiting producers, consumers and the global economy alike. Of course, any Chinese base in Iran will need carefully negotiated, transparent agreements to address concerns of Gulf neighbors and prevent misuse. Iran already maintains good relations with Gulf countries and a Chinese presence framed around economic connectivity and stability could reinforce rather than undermine these ties. Success would ultimately depend on parallel diplomatic efforts, economic incentives and confidence building measures. Bases alone cannot create peace, but they can help shape conditions in which peace becomes more attainable.
The Persian Gulf has endured too many cycles of tension, retaliation and fragile truces. A more balanced military posture including measured Chinese engagement in Iran offers a pragmatic pathway toward equilibrium. By shifting from unilateral dominance to shared stakes in stability, the region could transform the Strait of Hormuz from a perennial flashpoint into a genuine bridge of prosperity. In this era of intensifying great power competition, smart balancing may well prove the most realistic route to enduring security. For countries like Pakistan, which have long advocated for multipolarity and regional connectivity, stability, such developments merit close attention as they reshape the broader maritime and geopolitical landscape.
—The writer, a research fellow of geopolitics, maritime security & strategic affairs, is associated with the National Institute of Maritime Affairs; views expressed are his own.
