“The Bedouins and the Naked Man’s Cover!”

Essam Al-Hussein
Based on realities oscillating between two models of security—reciprocal security, in which protection rests on mutual commitment, and functional security, which serves a broader network of interests beyond national borders—the purpose of the American military presence in the Gulf becomes clearer. It is not primarily a system designed to provide local protection, but rather a deterrent framework aimed at safeguarding Israel’s interests in the region—if we seek to understand reality as it is, not as it is portrayed.
When the United States established its military bases across the Gulf, geography was opened to it, and extensive financial and logistical facilities were provided. This was done under the assumption that these bases would grant Gulf states a powerful deterrent umbrella. However, the first real test of this deterrence system—when American facilities faced waves of Iranian drones and missiles—revealed the extent of the illusion. It also exposed the American strategic understanding of alliances: partnerships based on interests rather than shared destiny. Military bases are therefore not absolute guarantees of protection, but merely one element within a shifting security equation.
There is little dispute that Israel’s security occupies a central place in U.S. Middle East strategy. It is a structural constant in Washington’s domestic and foreign policy, shaped by historical, ideological, and strategic considerations. From the American perspective, Israel’s security is essential to shaping the broader regional balance. The U.S. military bases in the Gulf form part of this architecture. Only afterwards come other objectives such as protecting oil flows, stabilising global markets, deterring regional rivals, and preventing strategic vacuums that major competing powers could fill.
In times of crisis, however, Israel’s security clearly takes precedence over all other considerations. This is something, the author argues, that some Gulf capitals have failed to grasp fully, and that their intelligence institutions may not have adequately anticipated: that the partnership is not an equal one when tested in moments of conflict.
The war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran, and Iran’s response targeting American bases and interests in the Gulf, demonstrated that Washington is less inclined to become directly entangled in regional conflicts and increasingly focused on strategic repositioning aimed primarily at protecting Israel.
This shift raises pressing questions:
Is the Gulf’s relationship with the United States one of balancing interests, or has it always been a form of strategic dependency?
Could Gulf states one day realise that hosting foreign military bases has made them part of a delicate equation designed primarily to strengthen Israeli security—turning them into participants in a conflict whose origins and consequences they did not fully choose?
The situation suggests that the American position toward Gulf states is shaped less by an absolute commitment to their security and more by a complex architecture of interests. These interests intertwine Israel’s security, energy stability, containment of rivals, and the broader management of global strategic balances.
As was famously attributed to former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak:
“Those who cover themselves with America are, in reality, naked.”

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=11980