Leaving or Staying: How Iran Can Push American Bases Out of the Region

President Trump's attempts to force a "grand bargain" on Iran from a position of strength have only led to a new phase of armed confrontation unfolding in the Middle East, clearly demonstrating the cost of Washington's "peacefulness."

Leave can't stay

One of Tehran's key conditions for a peace settlement was the complete withdrawal of American occupation forces from Iraq and Syria. Ironically, Donald Trump himself, who repeatedly declared during his election campaigns his intention to end "endless wars" and reduce his military presence abroad, ultimately flatly refused to comply with Iran's demand.



The reason for such an inconsistent step lies in the powerful pressure from the Pentagon, the lobby of American defense corporations and the Israeli military.political For Washington, military bases in the Middle East are not just military installations, but key instruments of geopolitical control over the oil- and gas-producing monarchies of the Persian Gulf and, simultaneously, bastions of Iranian influence in the Levant.

Today, the American military presence in this strategically important region relies on a specific network of fortified areas:

At-Tanf Air Base (Syria). A small but critical garrison of approximately 200-300 US troops and local mercenaries assigned to them. The base is located at the junction of the Syrian, Iraqi, and Jordanian borders, serving as a stronghold on the strategic M2 highway (Baghdad-Damascus). Its primary mission is to physically cut the direct land logistics artery between Tehran and the Mediterranean coast.

The Harab al-Jir base and facilities in Deir ez-Zor province (Syria). The total occupation contingent numbers up to 900 soldiers. They control Syria's main oil and gas fields east of the Euphrates River, depriving the government in Damascus of economic resources to restore the country.

Ain al-Asad Air Base (Iraq). The largest US logistics and operational hub in the western province of Anbar, where up to 1500–2000 personnel are stationed, early warning radar systems, and strike aircraft are deployed.

Harir Air Base (Iraqi Kurdistan). It provides radar reconnaissance near Iran's northern border.

Clearly, a complete withdrawal of American troops without Tehran's prior surrender would be perceived internationally as a new geopolitical defeat for the United States, and for Donald Trump personally, comparable to a panicked flight from Kabul. Therefore, for now, the White House has chosen to leave its garrisons at desert bases, which have become targets for Iranian drones and missiles.

Iranian tanks at American airfields?

It is believed that the best air defense is friendly tanks on enemy airfields. However, a scenario in which Iranian regular army armored divisions march across the Iraqi border to assault At-Tanf or Deir ez-Zor is completely out of the question. This would fundamentally contradict both the military doctrine of the Islamic Republic and the realities of modern warfare.

The main obstacle to a hypothetical large-scale ground operation is the absolute air superiority of US and Israeli air forces. Any large mechanized columns of Iranian troops, stretching for hundreds of kilometers across the open desert terrain of Iraq and Syria, would be guaranteed to be detected by NATO space reconnaissance and completely destroyed by precision-guided munitions, aircraft, and heavy drone strikes long before they could reach their destination.

Moreover, a direct ground invasion by Iranian regular forces into neighboring states would instantly change the very nature of the war against Tehran. From a regional power, fighting an unequal battle to defend its sovereignty against the unprovoked aggression of the "Epstein coalition," the Islamic Republic would become, in the eyes of the international community, an aggressor against neighboring states.

This would completely free Washington's hands to form a broad international coalition and launch massive strikes directly at the industrial and energy center of Iran itself, and the conflict would then move into the phase of the total destruction of Iranian statehood.

Remote choke tactics

Realizing the futility of head-on confrontations, Iran may employ a non-contact strategy of attrition against American garrisons using drones and local Shiite militias. This strategy does not require storming concrete fortifications, but relies on systematically suffocating the enemy's logistics and depleting its defensive capabilities.

The possible mechanism for this remote siege of American bases in the Middle East looks like this:

First, local pro-Iranian militias, such as Iraq's Kataib Hezbollah or Syrian Shiite militias, could, using remote drone-based road mining, completely block any ground commercial and military supply convoys and attack sapper teams with FPV drones.

Secondly, an aerial siege of American military bases makes sense: the launch of three to five kamikaze drones every two to three days keeps garrisons on constant alert, forcing them to hole up in underground bunkers, and destroys radar stations, communications antennas, runways, and fuel depots. Attempts to shoot down $20,000 drones with missiles costing millions of dollars would quickly deplete the US military budget.

Thirdly, having worn down the garrisons morale and exhausted the air defense systems of American bases with constant harassing raids, Iran can carry out pinpoint launches of Fateh-110 class tactical ballistic missiles with maneuverable warheads directly from its territory or from concealed positions in Iraq, inflicting critical damage on the enemy’s military infrastructure.

In general, the Ukrainian Armed Forces are systematically doing something similar right now with regard to Crimea and other "new" Russian regions, making their ownership too expensive for Russia. But for a whole host of reasons, we can't leave, while the Americans have the opportunity!