AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Iran's missile and drone attacks on American military facilities and bases in Bahrain, in addition to their military and regional dimensions, have raised new questions about the future of Washington's military presence in the country.
Abbas Al-Murshid, a Bahraini writer and analyst, in an op-ed published in Mar'at al-Bahrain, believes that these attacks, more than merely damaging American military infrastructure, have seriously challenged the image that had been built over decades of the immunity of these bases and their role in providing Bahrain's security.
Over five decades of American military presence in Bahrain has turned this country into one of the important centers for the deployment of Washington's military forces in the Persian Gulf region. Until the recent war, a significant portion of Bahraini public opinion knew the American military presence mainly through the "Al-Jufair" base and the deployment of the US Fifth Fleet; but the recent attacks revealed broader dimensions of the American military infrastructure on this island.
During these attacks, in addition to Al-Jufair, Sheikh Isa Air Base and a military facility associated with Muharraq Airport also came into focus. Thus, the war not only revealed the vulnerability of American military infrastructure but also exposed the dimensions of Washington's military presence in Bahrain to public opinion more than before.
Bases That Were Supposed to Guarantee Security But...
One of the main axes of this analysis is the functional change that, in the author's view, has been created in the perception of American bases. These bases were introduced over decades with the aim of providing Bahrain's security and strengthening America's regional deterrence; but with the outbreak of war, these very facilities became military targets, and their presence, instead of increasing the island's immunity, exposed it to direct attack.
In such circumstances, the important question is whether a base that has itself become one of the targets of attacks can still play the same deterrent role that was cited to justify its presence in Bahrain.
From this perspective, the issue is not merely the extent of damage to buildings and military equipment. The more important issue is the damage to the perception of the "immunity" of American bases and their ability to play a security role in the conditions of a regional war.
The End of the "Mountain of Fire" Legend?
In the published analysis, the term "Mountain of Fire" is used to describe the image that was formed over decades about military power and the network of foreign alliances around the Bahraini government.
According to this view, the existence of American military bases and Bahrain's security ties with foreign powers was not merely a military or geopolitical issue but was also influential in internal political equations. There was a perception that the power structure in Bahrain enjoyed military and political backing that made changing the balance of power within the country difficult.
For this reason, the American military presence in Bahrain, for the author of the op-ed, in addition to sending a deterrence message to external actors, also carried a message for internal opponents; a message that any fundamental change in the country's political structure would face broader security considerations at the regional level.
The Link Between American Security and Bahrain's Political Stability
This analysis also addresses the relationship between American security interests and Bahrain's internal political situation. From this perspective, the deployment of American military bases has made the security of these facilities and the continuation of their activities part of the political calculations related to the future of the Bahraini government.
In such a framework, demands related to political reforms, public participation, and constitutional changes could not be examined entirely separately from the question of what impact any political development in Bahrain would have on the future of the American military presence in the region.
The author believes this very equation created a broad space for maneuver for the Bahraini government, because the existing political stability could be linked to the security of American military arrangements in the Persian Gulf, and any serious change would be evaluated beyond Bahrain's internal borders and within the framework of regional rivalries.
The Contradiction in US Policy Toward Bahrain
Another axis of this report is the examination of America's dual policy toward Bahrain's political issues. Washington has spoken of reforms, democracy, and human rights over the years, but according to the author, maintaining security cooperation and the continuation of American military base activities in Bahrain has had greater practical priority at many junctures.
This approach has created a significant gap between America's political slogans about democracy and its security considerations in the region.
In this context, concern about the increasing political weight of Bahrain's Shia majority and its potential impact on regional relations, Iran's relations with Arab countries, and the future of the US Fifth Fleet is also considered influential in determining the limits of Washington's policy toward Bahrain's internal developments.
What Did Iran's Attacks Change?
Iran's attacks do not mean the end of the American presence in Bahrain, and it is not yet possible to speak with certainty about the future of Washington's military bases in the country. However, one of the important consequences of these attacks is that the image of these bases' invulnerability has been called into question.
The war showed that facilities created to protect a country, if they become part of a regional conflict, can themselves become a magnet for attacks.
On the other hand, the vulnerability of these bases and the possibility of the withdrawal or relocation of part of the American forces could increase the political and military costs of continuing Washington's presence in Bahrain.
The Bigger Question; Bahrain After the American Bases
From the perspective of this analysis, the main discussion should not be limited merely to whether American forces will return to Al-Jufair or Sheikh Isa bases or how much of the damaged infrastructure can be rebuilt.
The more important question is: if American bases cannot have the same security function as before, what new security strategy should Bahrain pursue?
Is it reasonable for a small country to remain a forward platform for great power competition and, in every regional war, be exposed to attack due to hosting a foreign power's military facilities?
This question could become one of the important future debates in Bahrain; especially if the damage inflicted on American military infrastructure affects the operations of these bases for a long time.
An Opportunity to Redefine the Concept of Security
Ultimately, this analysis is based on the view that even if Iran's main objective was to weaken American military infrastructure, one of its consequences could be damage to the security structure that has been formed in Bahrain over decades.
On this basis, the main issue after the war should not be merely finding a replacement base or even a new foreign patron, but could be redefining the concept of Bahrain's national security; a security that, instead of relying on foreign bases and being placed in regional alignments, is based on reducing tension with neighbors, keeping the country away from great power conflicts, and resolving internal political divisions.
In such circumstances, the end of the "Mountain of Fire" function will not be merely a military consequence of the war, but could once again place a question before Bahrain's political structure that has been postponed for over half a century: Is Bahrain's security ensured by increasing the military presence of foreign powers, or by building a country that neither becomes a battlefield for others nor is forced to rely on foreign force to maintain its own security?
**************
End/ 345E
