When the world's at stake,
go beyond the headlines.

Since the end of World War II, the United States has maintained hundreds of military installations abroad. While U.S. forces have faced some objections to their presence, many allies and partners have seen U.S. bases and other facilities on their territory as a sign of their close relations with a superpower, a form of protection, and an economic boon. However, the war with Iran has raised questions about whether hosting U.S. military installations subjects Arab Gulf states to Iranian retaliation while failing to provide sufficient protection. The sudden withdrawal of U.S. B-1 bombers from the RAF Fairford site in the United Kingdom earlier this month — reportedly in response to an Iranian threat — highlighted the risks to host countries. The Trump administration’s approach to allies and partners — such as criticizing European countries, scaling back military exercises with South Korea, and calling on Arab Gulf states to pay the United States for its help protecting ships transiting through the Strait of Hormuz — has not helped to reinforce public support for hosting U.S. military sites.We asked five experts about how some crucial U.S. allies and partners view hosting U.S. forces today, particularly in the wake of the war with Iran. Is the shine wearing off, or do the benefits still outweigh the disadvantages?For their assessments of the view from Japan, South Korea, Qatar, Germany, and the United Kingdom, read more below.Ayumi Teraoka Assistant Professor of Politics at Brandeis University Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research InstituteThe war in Iran highlights two concerns for Tokyo about U.S. reliability: inadequate U.S. consultation before initiating the conflict, despite exposing allies and U.S. bases to retaliation, combined with Washington’s reluctance to defend partner countries. The extensive use of missiles and drones in recent conflicts has also demonstrated how striking distant targets