this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2026
685 points (99.7% liked)
Progressive Politics
4908 readers
325 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The fact that the main US base in the Persian Gulf was destroyed has been known for months.
Here's a story about it from June:
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-us-naval-base-bahrain-e87bbca3
I remember reading back then about how the navy was scrambling to evacuate the base because they couldn't stop the incoming missiles.
You had to either really read in between the lines or be following alternative news sources to understand that the Bahrain base was destroyed in March. Most people following mainstream news did not know how bad it was. Heck - most casual people are still like 'what war?'
Not really, it was a major article in the WSJ, it was in the NY Times. the BBC. It was in the military's own news site Stars and Stripes.
I wouldn't be surprised if most people were unaware, but most people seem unaware of just about everything.
A fact that was and is still wildly under appreciated.
The loss of those bases is massive and likely a turning point in this mess.
I don't think it's that massive. It's embarrassing and shameful, but the US navy has plenty of other bases that can take up the slack.
It was really stupid to start a war with Iran without first moving all the key personnel out of that base and redeploying them outside Iran's reach. The navy had to know that once a shooting war started, a base that was just across the narrow part of the Gulf from Iran, only 200 km away, was going to be extremely vulnerable. It is a sign of the kind of military that Hegseth runs that they had to abandon and evacuate that base once missiles started hitting it.
But, there's no need for the USN to be commanded from a building that's only 200 km from Iran. They can manage that fleet from the nearby base in Naples, or from a US base.
And, of course, if Trump hadn't alienated all the US's former friends and allies, there might be plenty of places between the Persian Gulf and Naples that would be willing to help with resupplies. But, as it stands, the US doesn't really have any friends anymore.
The "Navy" may have known, but the two military geniuses Trump and Hegseth didn't know, because they literally know NOTHING. A couple of weeks after it started, and it was clear we were already in a quagmire, Trump went on air to say "Who would have expected that they'd shoot back? Nobody expected that!"
Everybody expected that, literally EVERYBODY. That's why nobody did it in the past. Not because they were weak, or stupid, or secretly working for the Muslims, etc. It was because everybody knew they'd shoot back AND close the Strait.
Everybody except these two fucking morons, whose Dunning-Krueger has greatly overwhelmed their Imposter Syndrome, rendering them too stupid to know how stupid they really are.
Virtuosic Incompetence rules our military, this war, and this government.
Clearly not in the area. This is the thing, it is very much a massive issue and loss.
The usn is not currently functioning the way it is expected to, and the loss of bases (something total unthinkable just last year) is a leading factor.
How close does the base have to be? The USN has resupply ships, allowing the fleets to stay somewhere and never go back to the port. For anything other than resupply, the base could really be anywhere in the world.
The USN is functioning in the way it is expected to. In a "real" war, you would expect there to be losses, including bases near the front line. In a real war it wouldn't be unusual for sailors to have to skip leave. The thing is, the US hasn't fought a "real" war in a very long time -- the kind of war that puts hardship on sailors. So, even though the US is sorta-kinda at war, it's not the kind of war where sailors feel like they have to make sacrifices. So, they're complaining a lot about having to stay out at sea for a long time.
Combine that with the military leadership being too proud to admit to making mistakes, the president being unwilling to ever back down, and nobody being willing to say that Iran managed to land a few blows, and you get sailors who don't believe they're in a real war, so they're pissed off about not getting shore leave. You also get a Navy that isn't willing to move other carrier strike groups into the region so that the sailors currently there can get cycled out for a break.
But, this is hardly devastating to the military. Morale on that carrier isn't great, but it's not like anybody's injured or dying. They're still getting regular supplies.
There's nothing about what's happening that's unthinkable. In a real war you'd expect things to be much worse.
The bases in the Gulf states weren't just sitting there for command. They were supposed to provide near-real-time intelligence and rapid response, in particular for the countries where those bases were stationed but also in general for the area. The bases synergized to protect each other, and in particular to protect Israel.
The point of that was to assert US control of the Persian Gulf and keep the Gulf states compliant. The importance of that can't be understated for the US's economy. These bases weren't built as a joke.
The US believed that Iran's government would fall and that Iran's military would be unable to mount a resistance. That's why the bases weren't evacuated before the war.
So losing them is a huge deal. It's at least 10 radar systems targeted, including the likely loss of 4 AN/TPY-2 radars for THAAD, of which only 14 has ever been produced. This means that the US is now in a much worse position to project power in the Persian Gulf.
The US will also never enter the Persian Gulf by sea again. I don't think these losses can be beushed off as inconsequential. These assets can not be replaced or made up for with bases elsewhere. And when the US military presence is removed from the Gulf States, it is reasonable to assume that the petrodollar will be significantly weakened.
Its not resupplying ships, this is not in debate. This "not war" has shown the usn is not functioning in the way their nation was expecting. They have a lack of ships (escort and supply) and this is showing.
It's not getting as frequent supplies as would be nice... but the US is at war, and that ship is on the frontlines of the war. That's perfectly normal in a war.
Yes it is, and the term for that is “losing”
they dont want destroyed bases in the ME to reach faux news or any other right wing outlets.
Fox News and others are covering it already:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-war-thrusts-diego-garcia-spotlight-official-calls-us-military-base-integral
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/how-iran-attacks-forcing-pentagon-rethink-its-decades-old-middle-east-base-strategy