During the Cold War, some air bases in Europe were protected by shelters capable of withstanding nearby nuclear explosions, with hangars buried under meters of concrete and steel. Decades later, many of these infrastructures have disappeared or become obsolete just as more modern threats once again target the same weak point.
The awakening underground. Now that the United States has once again put end date of the war, everything indicates that uranium, oil or Tehran’s nuclear bombs have taken a backseat, because Iran has forced the United States to rediscover something much more basic: survival starts underground.
After weeks of attacks with missiles and drones who have killed soldiers, destroyed aircraft and forced to disperse troops even to hotels and offices, the Pentagon has assumed that its immediate priority is not offensive, but defensive. The image of an army fighting “remotely” while their bases are hit summarizes the strategic turn: before projecting power, now it is time to resist.
Exposed bases. The conflict has revealed a weakness that had been brewing for years: the lack of infrastructure hardened in US bases. Key aircraft parked outdoors, fixed radars and large clearly identifiable facilities have been easy targets for increasingly precise Iranian attacks.
The system destruction such as an AWACS and the damage to multiple aircraft have shown that concepts such as dispersion or mobility are not enough when the enemy can hit repeatedly with cheap drones and ballistic missiles.
The late turn. They remembered the TWZ analysts which is now when the Pentagon is rushing to do what it has not done for years: build bunkers. From prefabricated shelters that should arrive in a matter of days to underground command and operations complexes that won’t be ready for a decade, the priority is clear.
Not only that. Commands on the ground they insist in which the reinforcement of positions and the expansion of refuges is already an urgent need, not a complement. However, this effort comes late for the current conflict and raises an uncomfortable question from the side of whoever started the war: why wasn’t it done sooner, when the threat was known?
Warnings ignored. I explained this morning in a piece the wall street journal What is most revealing is that the problem is not new. For years, American commanders they alerted of the vulnerability of the bases in the Gulf and proposed alternatives such as deploying forces further from Iran or create new networks of airfields in safer areas.
Those recommendations never materialized. Strategic priorities such as the turn towards the Pacific, diplomatic tensions and the lack of political urgency left a threat in the background that has now materialized in all its intensity.
From supremacy to survival. If you will, the conflict has also changed the logic of war for the United States in the region. It is no longer just about dominating the air with fighters, bombers or anti-missile systems, but about ensuring that these assets survive on the ground (or under it).
The combination of satellite intelligence, low-cost drones and precision strikes has dramatically reduced the margin of error. Every fixed base becomes a target, every repeated pattern a vulnerability, and every unprotected aircraft a potential loss.
A lesson. Beyond the Middle East theater, the lesson for the United States is even more profound. If Iran has been able to impose this pressure levelthe scenario in a major conflict (especially in the Pacific) would be exponentially more complex. The United States is not only late in reinforcing its bases in the Gulf, but also faces a global structural problem: the need to redesign your infrastructure military for an era where hiding, hardening and dispersing can be more decisive than attacking.
In other words, the war in Iran has not changed what weapons the United States uses, but it has revealed what its real priority is: build shelters before it’s too late.
Image | USAF
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings