Damage To Key US Bases In Gulf So Extensive The Pentagon May Not Rebuild Them

With each week and month that passes since the start of Trump's Operation Epic Fury, more and more reports have come out revealing the massive extent of damage to US military facilities in the Mideast region based on Iran's retaliation across the region.

This is often based on fresh satellite imaging and analysis, despite US government pressure for these research entities to refrain from publishing such data, and to censor open source photographs. After a series of deep investigative reports, it has been proven time and again that the Pentagon and Washington officials have been downplaying and covering up the real extent of devastation caused by Iranian missiles and drones.

More fresh reporting in the Wall Street Journal once again adds confirmation to this, referencing satellite imagery which shows far more serious damage at a key naval base in Bahrain than the US has publicly acknowledged.
WSJ featured newly publicized images of whole US military command & communications buildings belonging to the US Navy in Bahrain obliterated, via AIRBUS

The damage is said to be bad enough that the Pentagon is mulling shrinking its troop presence there and elsewhere in the Gulf, including a potential reduced troop footprint in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Iran is hailing this reported pullback as a significant strategic victory produced by its retaliation.

Unnamed officials were cited in the report as saying American forces could retreat as far westward as Israel, after some bases essentially became unusable or uninhabitable altogether.

Concerning the Bahrain base details, WSJ writes:

The U.S. Navy base in Bahrain was repeatedly targeted between late February and June. Strikes that got through caused extensive damage, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of satellite imagery, social-media footage and interviews with current and former servicemembers—damage that the Pentagon hasn’t publicly acknowledged. Hit hard were the command headquarters and at least a dozen other buildings, along with two satellite communications terminals.

The military said no one was killed at the base, known as Naval Support Activity Bahrain, and that the strikes didn’t significantly impact operations. The U.S. evacuated most personnel but has kept a small staff on the ground.

Notably in Bahrain the headquarters building for the US Navy in the Middle East was struck and seriously damaged, along with sensitive communications centers being destroyed.

But here is a key, somewhat unexpected line in the Journal report: "The extensive damage done to America’s sole naval base in the Middle East - along with hits to at least 20 U.S. sites across the region, including military installations and diplomatic facilities - has the U.S. re-evaluating its entire footprint in the region, according to U.S. officials familiar with the deliberations.

This means that damaged structures and bases may not be rebuilt at all, and the sites may just be abandoned as future key US military hubs, WSJ says.

The draw-down of expensive Pentagon comms centers could include from Bahrain: "The military is now considering revamping the base in Bahrain, reducing the U.S. presence in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and moving some bases or base functions west, farther from the reach of Iranian missiles and drones, according to the officials familiar with the deliberations," WSJ writes.

Reconstruction costs would be staggering, per the same report:

The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated in a report published Tuesday that the total cost of the war was about $40 billion. That estimate included their calculus of $2.2 billion to $5.1 billion in damage to U.S. bases, based on structures that CSIS identified as damaged.

The Journal used satellite images and social-media footage to identify which buildings on the Bahrain base were damaged. To estimate what it would cost to construct buildings of the same types today, the Journal reviewed a publicly available Defense Department cost model as well as procurement reports. The estimates only cover construction, and don’t include other costs that ​could factor into the total if the buildings were to be rebuilt, such as debris removal and reinforcement. ​

"The estimated construction costs at NSA Bahrain totaled about $400 million," it continues. But ultimately a draw-back from these locations would be based on the proven reality that Iran can easily hit them at any time.

Some further implications to all this are that in any future flare-up or even return to all-out war between the US and Iran, American forces would find themselves executing a conflict much further away from the theatre itself. For example, dozens of major Air Force refueling tankers have already had to be relocated far away from the Gulf, to places like Tel Aviv. Many were destroyed in the opening weeks of the war while parked at Gulf airfields, clearly over-exposed as it seems Iran knew exactly where to target.

Back in late March, US officials admitted to the NY Times that Iran's significantly retaliation damaging US bases was "a war that is much harder to prosecute."

https://www.zerohedge.com/mili...may-not-rebuild-them

quote:

Originally posted by goose5:

frozen thought to be extinct salamander. He frees it from the ice and then eats it.

Tastes like chicken.

I call bs on that wsj article. I am skeptical of most of it.

To be fair it’s very comforting to China, North Korea and Russia.

Amazed how the press today is more interested in finding dirt to expose the US and weaken it's ability to negotiate with Iran.

It's almost like they would love to see Trump lose in the negotiation battle with Iran.

They used to call that treason....

quote:

It's almost like they would love to see Trump lose in the negotiation battle with Iran.

That’s more like it with the corrupt media.

US strikes Iran in retaliation for Strait of Hormuz cargo ship attack
The strikes follow Iran's launching of a one-way attack drone at the Singapore-flagged M/V Ever Lovely cargo ship along the Omani coast as it exited the Strait of Hormuz.


The United States conducted military strikes against Iranian targets on Friday in retaliation for Iran's attack against a cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday, US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced on X/Twitter.

US Vice President JD Vance said of the strikes that "violence will be met with violence," in an X post on Saturday, noting that Iran can "pick up the phone" if it has "disagreements about how the MoU is being applied."

Targets included Iranian missile and drone storage locations, as well as coastal radar sites, CENTCOM stated.



Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Saturday that it attacked several US military targets in retaliation for the US strikes, according to Iranian state media.

The IRGC did not provide details on the US positions it targeted in the region.

In this picture obtained from Iran's ISNA news agency on June 18, 2026, vessels are seen anchored in Bandar Abbas along the Strait of Hormuz.
In this picture obtained from Iran's ISNA news agency on June 18, 2026, vessels are seen anchored in Bandar Abbas along the Strait of Hormuz.

The IRGC statement came after the semi-official ISNA news agency published an earlier statement it said was from the IRGC, declaring the force's response to the US attack would be "swift and decisive," before later deleting the statement.

Iran: Trump shows 'no commitment' to negotiations, ceasefire
Also on Saturday, the head of the Iranian Parliament's National Security Committee accused Trump of showing "no commitment to the principles of negotiation or the ceasefire."

He added that the "reckless violation of the ceasefire" will lead to "regret and retreat" from the US.

According to CENTCOM, the US strikes follow Iran's launching of a one-way attack drone at the Singapore-flagged M/V Ever Lovely cargo ship along the Omani coast as it exited the Strait of Hormuz.

"The unwarranted aggression against commercial shipping by Iranian forces clearly violated the ceasefire," said CENTCOM. "Furthermore, Iran’s dangerous behavior undermined freedom of navigation as commerce increasingly flows through the vital international trade corridor."

CENTCOM forces continue to provide safe passage coordination and support to commercial vessels transiting the strait," CENTCOM added. "The US military remains present and vigilant to ensure all aspects of the agreement with Iran are adhered to, obeyed, and in full force and effect."

Trump: Cargo ship survived Iran's attack
The strikes come after US President Donald Trump hinted at an American response to Iran's attack, saying "you’ll find out" when asked if there would be consequences for Tehran.

Trump said on Truth Social that a drone had hit the upper deck of the Singaporean Cargo Ship, causing damage, but the ship was reportedly able to "proceed on its way."

“We knocked down three other drones,” said Trump, calling the attack a "foolish" violation of the current ceasefire agreement.

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) confirmed that the cargo vessel was hit on its starboard side by an unidentified projectile on Thursday, damaging the bridge. No casualties or environmental impact have been reported as a result of the attack.

https://www.jpost.com/middle-e...-news/article-900622

Set loose the dogs of war fully off the leash. These sumbitches will NEVER stop FA. They most certainly need to FO what the stone age is really like.

quote:

Targets included Iranian missile and drone storage locations, as well as coastal radar sites, CENTCOM stated.

Goddamn! Should have been taken out while the going was hot. Why the fuck are they still around?

EXACTLY. WTF.

They can pop stuff up like that and move things around in short order. That's why

As Allenby said in ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ “pound them, Charlie, pound them!!”

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:
They can pop stuff up like that and move things around in short order. That's why

Yet, somehow they were sitting ducks this time.

quote:

Originally posted by P220forever:
Set loose the dogs of war fully off the leash

This should have been apparent going into this. You are either prepared to end these people or leave them the fuck alone or they will drag you into this quagmire of back and forth bullshit of promises made and broken. Only they can win the bullshit battle.

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:

quote:

Originally posted by P220forever:
Set loose the dogs of war fully off the leash

This should have been apparent going into this. You are either prepared to end these people or leave them the fuck alone or they will drag you into this quagmire of back and forth bullshit of promises made and broken. Only they can win the bullshit battle.

4,3,2,1

Although some people believe it’s impossible that our military could ever run low on ordnance, is it possible the Internet authorities are mistaken and there are concerns about how much is being used and how quickly despite the existence of legitimate targets?

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Although some people believe it’s impossible that our military could ever run low on ordnance, is it possible the Internet authorities are mistaken and there are concerns about how much is being used and how quickly despite the existence of legitimate targets?

Quite impossible to know unless you’re at the top levels. They could do a “triage” and import some ordnance from other parts of the world although they probably wouldn’t like to do that.

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:
They can pop stuff up like that and move things around in short order. That's why

It's like playing a game of whac-a-mole.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Although some people believe it’s impossible that our military could ever run low on ordnance, is it possible the Internet authorities are mistaken and there are concerns about how much is being used and how quickly despite the existence of legitimate targets?

I noticed this argument in the media early on, and thought is was just the normal bias. It started to seep in to the people that I listen to. Started looking around and learned Raytheon makes 90 Tomahawks per year.

THAAD interceptors are made by Lockheed Martin, and 96 are made per year.

So, with this information the low magazine argument is believable.

One good thing from all this is we now know that we must alter procurement for weapons systems. And, there are many companies out there working on just that. Can't remember the name, but I heard one CEO of a company making cruise missiles. One costs 50k and can be assembled with tools you can get at Home Depot. Three different warheads. Range is 900 miless. You can swap out an electronic warfare package, and intelligence package. Sounds pretty slick.

quote:

Originally posted by goose5:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Although some people believe it’s impossible that our military could ever run low on ordnance, is it possible the Internet authorities are mistaken and there are concerns about how much is being used and how quickly despite the existence of legitimate targets?

I noticed this argument in the media early on, and thought is was just the normal bias. It started to seep in to the people that I listen to. Started looking around and learned Raytheon makes 90 Tomahawks per year.

THAAD interceptors are made by Lockheed Martin, and 96 are made per year.

So, with this information the low magazine argument is believable.

One good thing from all this is we now know that we must alter procurement for weapons systems.

So is that how many the DO make, or that they CAN make? It makes a difference...

Perhaps 'altering our procurement for weapons systems' means we simply need to revise those defense contracts and/or just purchase more of them.