US aircraft carriers should now leave the Middle East
All the while, the Navy had five Aegis ships operating in the region, with SM-3 interceptors that were critical elements in Israel's defense against incoming Iranian ballistic missiles. The Navy had two aircraft carriers operating in the region, with a third deploying to Europe that could also be redirected to the Middle East. Carrier-based F-35Cs provided air superiority and also acted as decoys in the strike on Iran.
The massive American military operation would appear to undermine the case — which a number of senior officials in the Trump administration have long put forward — that the U.S. should pull its forces from the region in order to redirect them toward the Western Pacific to confront the increasingly potent and sophisticated Chinese threat. Yet the strike on Iranian facilities, which may yet have to be repeated, would appear to demonstrate that Washington remains enmeshed in the region for the foreseeable future.
The case for the U.S. military withdrawing from the Middle East is not particularly new. As far back as the early 1990s, Secretary of State James Baker sought to have the U.S. disentangle itself from the ever-volatile Middle East. He failed, however, as have policymakers ever since.
Nevertheless, despite their role in the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, it is arguable that at least one and perhaps both aircraft carriers, as well as several of their escorts, currently operating in the region could be redeployed to the Western Pacific.
Even in the absence of carriers and their F-35s, the U.S. has a large remaining fighter force spread throughout the Arabian Gulf. This force — which includes F-35A, F-22, F-15 and other fighter jets — operates from Qatar's sprawling Al Udeid Air Base, Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, the UAE's Al Dhafra Air Base, as well as Kuwait. Various intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft are already stationed in the Gulf as well.
Other fighter aircraft could be rotated into these bases as a given contingency might require. Similarly, tankers can be deployed to bases in the region; over 30 were repositioned in anticipation of the strike on Iran. Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems could also be deployed to the Middle East to augment those already stationed there.
The fiscal year 2026 budget proposal, together with the budget reconciliation package, provides for 19 new naval ships, including two attack submarines and two more Aegis ships. Yet it will take years before these ships enter the fleet, and in the meantime the Navy, at less than 280 ships, will be hard put to provide a presence in the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific. Something has to give.
The administration should therefore consider whether now is indeed the time to reposition part of the carrier force away from the Middle East. This is not to argue that all Atlantic-based aircraft carriers and most of their escorts should be permanently redeployed to the Western Pacific. There remain numerous requirements for carrier task forces as part of America's ongoing commitment to NATO. Indeed, so long as there is a Russian threat to the alliance — likely the case for years to come — America's aircraft carrier force will remain a critical element of NATO's deterrent.
But the Middle East is another matter. There are numerous bases hosting American aircraft throughout the Arabian Gulf that could take more aircraft if necessary, giving Washington a powerful land-based deterrent. The flexibility of the submarine force adds to that deterrent. And the ability of the bomber force to transit from either American bases or Diego Garcia further underscores American power in the region.
If the naval fleet were large as it had been decades ago, it would have been beneficial to supplement America's Middle Eastern forces with a carrier presence. But the fleet is half the size it was in the 1970s, and aircraft carriers in the Middle East, even as part of a major military operation like Operation Midnight Hammer, are a luxury that America can no longer afford.
Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
43 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
The Supreme Court stripped judges of a powerful tool to fight Trump's autocracy. Congress must give it back.
But now they can't. Based on the Supreme Court's reading of a 1789 law, lower courts can now only take such action on specific cases before them, meaning that even clear-cut violations of the law could continue against those without the wherewithal to go to court. Advertisement Congress can and must correct this mistake. Lawmakers should pass legislation that protects judges' ability to provide robust equitable remedies when people's rights are threatened by legally or constitutionally dubious administration actions. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Now, it's true that there have been problems with universal injunctions, and judges have sometimes misused them. But the court's ruling took a sledgehammer to a system that should have been fixed by Congress with a scalpel. And in the case of Trump, the ruling opens the door for him to strip birthright citizenship from American-born babies, continue whisking migrants to countries foreign to them with little notice and without due process, and engage in other actions that threaten people's rights and freedoms. Advertisement The court's 6-3 ideologically split opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was based on the majority's interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The justices considered if the statute authorizes broad preliminary injunctions like that issued by Boston-based US District Court Justice Brian Murphy, which paused Trump's executive order to deny birthright citizenship to children born to some migrants. 'The answer is no,' Barrett wrote for the majority. Instead, the court held, challengers of the policy who have standing to bring suit can only obtain such preliminary relief for themselves. '[P]rohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship,' Barrett wrote. 'And extending the injunction to cover everyone similarly situated would not render her relief any more complete.' This is untenable, and will only lead to a cruel game of judicial whack-a-mole that fails to provide adequate protection to those most imperiled by these policies. The onus should not fall on those who are targeted by these policies to fend for themselves. It should fall on the administration to show that it is acting in a lawful way. The court did just the opposite, holding that it is the administration that will likely suffer irreparable harm if courts dare to exercise their authority as a check on the executive. The overuse of universal injunctions has been an issue of increasing bipartisan concern, particularly since the Obama administration. In the last two decades, both the number of executive orders issued and the number of temporary injections blocking them have steadily ballooned. But the number of executive orders Trump has issued in his second term is without historical precedent, even exceeding Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who issued a flurry of edicts in an effort to implement his New Deal agenda. Advertisement And many of Trump's orders are based on strained legal or constitutional arguments, such as the administration's claim that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protection only extended to children of enslaved people, that the Alien Enemies Act allows migrants to be deported without due process, or that the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the government to send migrants to countries where they've never been and to which they have no connection. Judges must have the ability to decide when relief extending beyond named plaintiffs is warranted. Should there be limits on that power? Yes, and Congress can include them in its bill. It can also underscore that states can still seek statewide relief from policies they can demonstrate harm all of their residents, and ease the process for class actions to be formed at the earliest stages of litigation to give relief to groups of people who demonstrate a need for protection. Judges handling the flurry of Trump-related litigation need more tools, not fewer. It's lawmakers' duty to give those tools to them. The Supreme Court must also swiftly take up and decide the constitutional and legal questions presented by Trump's orders. The justices could have rejected the Trump administration's erroneously limited reading of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protections, but opted instead to leave that question for another day. But given the risks of the order, there is no time like the present. And in the meantime, federal judges must do all they can to help challengers who will be harmed by Trump's policies. The Supreme Court did not tie judges' hands completely when it comes to equitable relief. Quick certification of class actions and swiftly granting relief to states that demonstrate the peril to their residents are among the arrows still in judges' quivers. They must use them. Advertisement We are not as bound or doomed by history as the Supreme Court's justices believe. The public needs to demand that members of the legislative and judiciary branches stand up and reclaim their powers to check a president who believes he is above the law and the Constitution. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Boston Globe
43 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Don't look away from what's happening in Iran
As an Iranian-American who has lived and worked as a journalist in Iran — and who spent 100 days imprisoned there — I feel both anguish and dread watching history repeat itself. The leaders of the United States, Israel, and the Islamic Republic are jockeying over claims of victory, while human rights abuses and the everyday suffering of ordinary Iranians have started to fade, once again, from the headlines. Advertisement During the 12 days of war, more than 700 people were accused of being 'Israeli operatives' and were arrested, according to the state-affiliated Fars News Agency. Human rights groups Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Meanwhile, Iran's parliament has Advertisement It's no surprise that a regime blindsided by a foreign enemy's highly coordinated attacks would now move swiftly to root out what it sees as security threats. But the regime is not just fighting foreign adversaries. It is using the war as a pretext to crack down on domestic dissent. Having experienced firsthand the lack of due process and transparency within the Islamic Republic's judicial system, I have no doubt that many innocent people will be punished for crimes they did not commit. In 2009, after six years of living and working in Iran as a journalist, I was arrested and accused of spying for the United States. My interrogators claimed that the CIA had paid me to use a book I was writing about Iran as a cover for espionage. 'It's not possible you could be conducting so many interviews,' one insisted, 'only for a book.' Like many Iranian political prisoners, I was held in solitary confinement and subjected to grueling interrogations, unable to inform anyone of my whereabouts. The authorities threatened my loved ones, fabricated evidence, and warned that espionage could result in many years in prison, and even the death penalty. For decades the regime has accused journalists, civil society leaders, women's rights activists, lawyers, academics, environmentalists, and humanitarian workers of committing crimes against the state — sometimes under a charge of espionage. During my time in Tehran's notorious Advertisement My own sentence was eight years, but I was lucky. After an Countless others — especially those without the support of a foreign government or the attention of the international media — have not been so fortunate. The regime expends enormous resources interrogating citizens, monitoring internet activity and phone calls, pressuring people to inform on one another, and tailing them in the streets, in cars, even on flights abroad. 'If the system worked well, they would have found the real spies and prevented Israel from doing so much damage,' an Iranian friend told me. 'But instead, the regime took people like you and claimed you were spies.' Today, many of those being swept up in the regime's dragnet appear to be suffering the same fate. Detainees are being fast-tracked through unfair trials in kangaroo courts without legal representation or due process, according to the Center for Human Rights in Iran. The Iranian regime is responding with repression because 'it knows it won't collapse due to foreign intervention alone,' says Rebin Rahmani, a board member of the Paris-based Advertisement This crackdown, in other words, was predictable. Afsoon Najafi, whose youngest sister, Hadis, was shot and killed by security forces during nationwide protests in 2022, told me, 'A large percentage of Iranians will again be killed by the Islamic Republic because the regime's agents are full of resentment toward Iranians. And the regime's own agents also know that we know they're scared.' Regardless of whether US and Iranian officials resume negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, the Trump administration has an opportunity to show that human rights matter, too. That means, among other things, supporting Iranians' access to information — for example, by restoring full funding to Voice of America Persian, a crucial source of uncensored news for millions in Iran. American citizens can also play a role. By calling their members of Congress and expressing support for measures like the Steps like those from the American people, even if their message isn't taken up by Congress and the current administration, would still send a clear signal to Iran: Human rights abuses will not be ignored. When I asked an artist in Tehran what she hoped the world would understand about the Iranian people now that a fragile cease-fire is in place, she said on condition of anonymity, 'I don't know what the people of the world can do, but I want them not to be indifferent to the pain we're enduring.' 'At the very least,' she added, 'let us remain in the news. Let them keep an eye on us.' Advertisement If the world fails to keep an eye on the Iranian people, we risk silently sanctioning yet another chapter of repression in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Japan to export used destroyers to Philippines to deter China, Yomiuri reports
TOKYO (Reuters) -Japan will export used navy destroyers to the Philippines to strengthen its deterrence against China's maritime expansion, the Yomiuri newspaper reported on Sunday, as the two U.S. allies increase cooperation to counter Beijing. The export plan involves six Abukuma-class destroyer escorts in service by the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force for more than three decades, the Japanese daily said, citing multiple unnamed government sources. Defence ministers Gen Nakatani and Gilberto Teodoro agreed to the destroyer export when they met in Singapore last month, the Yomiuri said, adding the Philippine military is set to inspect the destroyers this summer as part of the final preparations. A Japanese defence ministry spokesperson declined to comment on the report. A Philippine military spokesperson and China's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to Reuters requests for comment. Tokyo and Manila say they face challenges from Beijing's increasingly assertive moves in waters including the South China Sea for the Philippines and the East China Sea for Japan. Bilateral military cooperation has included joint exercises, a Japanese radar aid package and a high-level strategic dialogue. Last year they signed a reciprocal access agreement, the first such for Japan in Asia, allowing deployment of forces on each other's soil. To clear military equipment export restrictions for the destroyers under Japan's pacifist mandates, Tokyo will treat the installation of equipment and communication systems requested by Manila as a joint development project, the Yomiuri said. The Abukuma-class destroyer escort, a relatively small type of destroyer with a 2,000-ton standard displacement, is operated by a crew of about 120 and is armed with anti-submarine and anti-ship missiles, torpedo tubes and guns, according to a Japanese navy website. The Philippine Navy does not have destroyers, only frigates and corvettes, which are typically smaller and lighter-armed vessels.
