Military and intelligence officials discuss smaller presence in the Middle East as US looks for another post-9/11 strategy

Delil Souleiman/AFP/Getty Images

In offices across the military and in the intelligence community, there have been recent quiet discussions about cutting the number of people and facilities typically stationed in the Middle East if the Trump administration succeeds in ending the Iran conflict, six sources say.

If those cuts happen, it would mark another shift in how the US national security apparatus treats a region that successive presidents have sought to leave behind.

In the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks, the US exponentially expanded a constellation of permanent military and intelligence facilities to fight wars and conduct strikes in half a dozen countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Libya.

But the recent fighting with Iran has laid bare deep vulnerabilities in the American infrastructure in the Middle East as many of those sites have become targets of repeated Iranian attacks in an unpopular war that has killed 18 American service members .

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Officials involved in the informal discussions in the military and the intelligence community indicated they are now acting at least in part to predict what might be acceptable to a mercurial president who sources say has articulated no clear strategy for a postwar future — and who, in the past, has staked his political identity on reducing American forces overseas.

Those discussions are happening even as there are still 50,000 troops and a large number of military assets in the Middle East, including two aircraft carriers and more than a dozen guided-missile destroyers. CIA officers who were sent home during the hottest part of the fighting earlier this year are being sent back to the region, one of the sources said.

The US military is also evaluating how to harden its defenses for those troops who are expected to remain in the region, even once the war ends. That includes by moving some installations underground to better defend against missile and drone attacks like those launched by Iran in the monthslong conflict, according to two sources familiar with the discussions.

While the Pentagon has long discussed moving some bases in the region underground, the idea took on new urgency after the first weeks of war as Iran exposed how vulnerable they were to drone and missile attacks.

“The vulnerabilities were always known, but the US never acted on it with urgency,” said one of the sources, a US official.

The military has developed several potential courses of action for changing the US force structure in the Middle East as soon as next year, two of the sources said — noting it would not make sense to abandon those strategic locations for launching aircraft while the conflict is ongoing.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense directed questions to US Central Command. Central Command did not respond to a query from CNN before publication. The Central Intelligence Agency declined to comment.

In the background of today’s discussion are the repeated planned pivots out of the region: 25 years of military intervention in the Middle East since September 11 with cycles of promises to pull back.

The US military started dramatically increasing its footprint in the Middle East in the years before 9/11, maintaining a presence of roughly 27,000 active-duty troops across the region starting in 1998 — significantly more than in the decades prior.

That number would only continue to grow after the September 11 attacks, as US basing grew to support first the war in Afghanistan, then Iraq, then a metastasizing series of counterterrorism conflicts in hot spots around the region.

Two years after the September 11 attacks, the US had an estimated 250,000 troops in the Middle East during the invasion of Iraq. Between 2007 and 2011, the number of Americans in the region fluctuated but never dropped below roughly 100,000, according to publicly available estimates.

Scott Nelson/Getty Images

In 2011, then-President Barack Obama announced that “the tide of war is receding” in Afghanistan and that the US would begin drawing down tens of thousands of troops whom he had surged to the fight. The US would not withdraw fully from Afghanistan for another decade.

That same year, Obama withdrew combat troops from Iraq in a bid to extricate the US from a war widely seen as a failure. But he was forced to return when the vacuum of American power arguably led to the rise of ISIS.

Even as the total of US troops in the Middle East dropped in the years following 2011, it still hovered between 30,000 and 60,000. Throughout that time, the potential threat from Iran also loomed large in the mind of US policymakers, in particular proxy groups that launched fatal attacks on American service members in Iraq.

Though planners are discussing options for potential cuts now, the US appears no closer to negotiating a settlement with Iran that would end the conflict. Iran continues to target US bases and forces deployed to the region, launching attacks against American installations in Jordan and the United Arab Emirates last week as the two sides exchanged fire for the first time in roughly a month.

The damage has been substantial, US officials say: The CIA’s outpost in Riyadh , Saudi Arabia, for example, was effectively destroyed by an Iranian attack, according to one US official and a former intelligence officer. Although Pentagon officials have sought to downplay the impact, American military installations in Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have all been struck by Iranian drones and missiles, and sources say the damage has been significant.

For the CIA and the military’s elite special operations command, some officials have considered whether the same sensitive jobs can be done without permanent basing, according to two US officials: leave personnel and equipment stationed in the United States, send them to the Middle East for individual missions, then return home.

In some cases, the US government may simply decline to rebuild assets that were severely damaged or destroyed by Iranian attacks — in part due to cost considerations, one official and two other sources familiar with the discussions said.

Pentagon officials have publicly refused to say what they might rebuild.

In April, Pentagon comptroller Jules “Jay” Hurst III told reporters it was not clear how much it would cost to repair bases and facilities damaged from the war with Iran, “and part of it is we would assess what our posture should be in the Middle East.”

Hurst later added that the Pentagon does not “have a final number for what the damage is to our installations overseas,” and it depends “on how we decide to rebuild those, or if we do.”

Senior Pentagon officials have privately made clear they want to scale back the US military’s troop presence in several Gulf countries as part of a broader effort to shift more of the defense burden onto regional partners, according to three sources familiar with the discussions.

Sources said there was no official process or direct order to conduct what’s known formally as a force posture review. Officials within different parts of the military and the CIA are instead keenly aware that even as the military continues to escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz , launch attacks on Iranian infrastructure and threaten strikes against additional targets that would likely further escalate the conflict, President Donald Trump is known to change his mind quickly.

“Is there an implicit task? Is there something coming down the pike where we need to be prepared to go, or are we sitting [forward] just in case?” said another US official, describing the tone of the discussions.

The CIA was in search of a mission at the time of the 9/11 attacks, former officers and historians say: Its chief adversary, the Soviet Union, had fallen. There were analysts at the agency deeply steeped in terrorism and in the Middle East — but not many of them. Staff in the region probably numbered in the mere hundreds, according to Jeffrey Rogg, an intelligence historian at the University of Texas at Austin.

After 9/11, that all changed. The agency recruited heavily and grew a much larger cadre of paramilitary officers who carried guns and worked closely with the US military to hunt out terrorists — a contrast to the traditional picture of a case officer, who was tasked with developing source relationships and gathering secrets.

But both organizations lived through the ebbs and flows of a two-decade engagement in a region that presidents of both parties at times wanted desperately to leave behind. Obama sought to engineer a “pivot” of American military and intelligence resources to Asia; Trump’s administration in his first term ranked China as America’s biggest threat in his first national security strategy.

But the word “pivot” became a running joke in national security circles as successive crises and policy decisions — including the unforeseen rise of ISIS and Trump’s first-term decision to kill top Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani — continued to suck the United States back into the Middle East.

Top US military leaders have recently warned Trump that combat options for escalating the conflict with Iran are unlikely to achieve his stated objectives, CNN has reported , with the president instead opting to focus on ramping up economic pressure in hopes of crippling the regime.

But there is no clear timeline for how long that strategy may take to produce results, and many analysts believe that Iran’s current leadership may be willing to endure months of economic pain and is unlikely to capitulate in the near term.

Broadly, Pentagon officials expect to maintain some of the large, permanent military bases in the region, but rebuilding those installations may depend on the host nation’s willingness to contribute to the cost, which would likely be in the billions of dollars, one of the sources told CNN. The source added that many were originally constructed and paid for by the country in which they reside.

In the short term, US troops and bases in neighboring countries will almost certainly face continued attacks from Iran.

The Navy’s top admiral said last week that personnel would not be returning to Bahrain, the traditional home of the 5th Fleet, “anytime soon.”

“We’re not getting back in there anytime soon,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle said. “I just want to be completely honest with that.”

Delil Souleiman/AFP/Getty Images

六位消息人士称，最近军方和情报部门内部一直在私下讨论，如果特朗普政府成功结束伊朗冲突，是否应该削减通常驻扎在中东的人员和设施数量。

如果这些削减措施真的发生，这将标志着美国国家安全机构对待这个历任总统都试图抛弃的地区的方式发生了又一次转变。

在 2001 年 9 月 11 日袭击事件发生后，美国迅速扩张了一系列永久性军事和情报设施，以便在伊拉克、阿富汗、叙利亚、伊朗、也门、利比亚等六个国家进行战争和打击。

但最近与伊朗的冲突暴露了美国在中东的基础设施的严重脆弱性，因为许多此类设施已成为伊朗反复袭击的目标。这场不得人心的战争已造成 18 名美国军人丧生。

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

参与军方和情报界非正式讨论的官员表示，他们现在的行动至少部分是为了预测一位反复无常的总统可能会接受什么。消息人士称，这位总统没有阐明战后未来的明确战略，而且在过去，他曾将自己的政治身份押注于削减美国海外军队。

尽管目前中东地区仍有5万名美军士兵和大量军事资产，包括两艘航空母舰和十几艘导弹驱逐舰，但这些讨论仍在进行。一位消息人士称，今年早些时候冲突最激烈时期被遣返回国的中央情报局官员正在被重新派往该地区。

据两位知情人士透露，美军正在评估如何加强对预计在战争结束后仍将驻扎在该地区的部队的防御。这包括将部分设施转移到地下，以便更好地防御导弹和无人机袭击，例如伊朗在长达数月的冲突中发动的袭击。

虽然五角大楼长期以来一直在讨论将该地区的一些基地转移到地下，但在战争爆发后的最初几周，随着伊朗暴露出其基地在无人机和导弹袭击面前的脆弱性，这一想法变得更加紧迫。

“这些漏洞一直都知道，但美国从未采取紧急行动，”一位美国官员表示。

两名消息人士称，军方已经制定了几项可能改变美国在中东部队结构的潜在行动方案，最早可能在明年实施——他们指出，在冲突仍在进行的情况下放弃这些战略要地来起飞飞机是不明智的。

国防部长办公室将问题转给了美国中央司令部。中央司令部在发稿前未回复CNN的问询。中央情报局拒绝置评。

在今天讨论的背景中，是反复计划撤出该地区的行动：自 9·11 事件以来，美国在中东进行了 25 年的军事干预，并不断做出撤军的承诺。

在 9/11 事件发生前的几年里，美国军方开始大幅增加其在中东的军事存在，从 1998 年开始在该地区保持着大约 27,000 名现役部队的存在——这比之前几十年要多得多。

9·11 事件之后，随着美国军事基地不断扩大，以支持阿富汗战争、伊拉克战争，以及该地区热点地区一系列不断蔓延的反恐冲突，这一数字只会继续增长。

9·11事件两年后，美国在入侵伊拉克期间，估计在中东地区驻扎了25万美军。根据公开的估计数据，2007年至2011年间，该地区的美军人数虽有波动，但从未低于10万人左右。

Scott Nelson/Getty Images

2011年，时任总统奥巴马宣布阿富汗“战争的浪潮正在消退”，美国将开始撤回他曾增派到阿富汗作战的数万名士兵。然而，美国直到十年后才完全撤出阿富汗。

同年，奥巴马从伊拉克撤出作战部队，试图使美国摆脱这场被普遍认为是失败的战争。但由于美国权力真空，ISIS的崛起被认为是其罪魁祸首之一，最终他被迫重返伊拉克。

即使在 2011 年之后的几年里，驻中东美军总人数有所下降，但仍徘徊在 3 万至 6 万人之间。在此期间，伊朗的潜在威胁也一直萦绕在美国决策者的心头，尤其是那些在伊拉克对美军发动致命袭击的代理组织。

尽管规划人员目前正在讨论可能的削减方案，但美国似乎仍未就与伊朗达成结束冲突的协议取得任何进展。伊朗继续袭击部署在该地区的美国基地和部队，上周对约旦和阿联酋的美国设施发动袭击，双方近一个月来首次交火。

美国官员表示，损失相当惨重：例如，据一位美国官员和一位前情报官员透露，中央情报局位于沙特阿拉伯利雅得的前哨站几乎被伊朗的袭击摧毁。尽管五角大楼官员试图淡化此次袭击的影响，但美国在巴林、卡塔尔、沙特阿拉伯和科威特的军事设施均遭到伊朗无人机和导弹袭击，消息人士称损失重大。

据两位美国官员透露，对于中央情报局和军方精锐特种作战司令部来说，一些官员已经考虑过是否可以在没有永久基地的情况下完成同样的敏感工作：将人员和设备留在美国，派往中东执行个别任务，然后再返回美国。

一位官员和另外两位熟悉讨论的消息人士表示，在某些情况下，美国政府可能干脆拒绝重建被伊朗袭击严重损坏或摧毁的资产——部分原因是出于成本考虑。

五角大楼官员公开拒绝透露他们可能会重建哪些部分。

今年 4 月，五角大楼主计长朱尔斯·“杰伊”·赫斯特三世告诉记者，目前还不清楚修复在与伊朗的战争中受损的基地和设施需要多少费用，“其中一部分原因是我们需要评估我们在中东的姿态应该是什么。”

赫斯特后来补充说，五角大楼“还没有最终确定我们在海外的设施受损情况”，这取决于“我们如何决定重建这些设施，或者是否重建”。

据三位知情人士透露，五角大楼高级官员私下已明确表示，他们希望缩减美国在几个海湾国家的驻军规模，这是将更多国防负担转移给地区伙伴的更广泛努力的一部分。

消息人士称，并没有正式的程序或直接命令来进行所谓的“兵力部署评估”。军方和中央情报局各部门官员都清楚地意识到，即便军方继续护送船只通过霍尔木兹海峡，对伊朗基础设施发动袭击，并威胁要对其他可能进一步加剧冲突的目标进行打击，但众所周知，唐纳德·特朗普总统经常会迅速改变主意。

另一位美国官员在描述讨论的语气时说：“是否存在一项隐性任务？是否存在即将发生的事情需要我们做好准备，还是我们只是在以防万一？”

据前官员和历史学家称，9·11事件发生时，中央情报局正在寻找新的任务：其主要对手苏联已经解体。该机构内部有一些对恐怖主义和中东局势有着深入了解的分析人员，但人数不多。德克萨斯大学奥斯汀分校的情报史学家杰弗里·罗格表示，当时在该地区的员工可能只有几百人。

9·11事件后，一切都改变了。该机构大量招募人员，组建了一支规模更大的准军事人员队伍，他们携带枪支，与美军密切合作，追捕恐怖分子——这与传统的线人形象截然不同，线人通常负责建立线人关系和收集秘密。

但这两个组织都经历了长达二十年的地区交往的起伏跌宕，而两党总统都曾一度迫切希望摆脱该地区。奥巴马试图将美国的军事和情报资源“转向”亚洲；特朗普政府在其第一任期内，在其首份国家安全战略中将中国列为美国最大的威胁。

但随着接连不断的危机和政策决定——包括ISIS的意外崛起和特朗普在第一任期内决定击毙伊朗高级将领卡西姆·苏莱曼尼——不断将美国拖回中东，“转向”一词在国家安全界成了一个笑话。

据 CNN 报道，美国高级军事领导人最近警告特朗普，通过升级与伊朗的冲突来实施的作战选项不太可能实现他所宣称的目标，而总统则选择集中精力加大经济压力，希望以此削弱伊朗政权。

但目前尚不清楚该战略需要多久才能产生效果，许多分析人士认为，伊朗目前的领导层可能愿意承受数月的经济痛苦，不太可能在短期内屈服。

据CNN报道，一位消息人士透露，五角大楼官员总体上希望保留该地区的一些大型永久性军事基地，但重建这些设施可能取决于所在国是否愿意承担部分费用，而这笔费用可能高达数十亿美元。该消息人士还补充说，许多基地最初都是由其所在国建造和出资的。

短期内，美国在邻国的军队和基地几乎肯定会面临来自伊朗的持续袭击。

海军最高将领上周表示，人员“近期”不会返回巴林，巴林是第五舰队的传统驻地。

“我们近期内不会重返那里，”海军作战部长达里尔·考德尔海军上将说。“我只想坦诚地告诉大家这一点。”