(下边有中文翻译，请继续看到底。谢谢。）
The latest escalation between the United States, Israel, and Iran has raised a serious question for the Middle East, Europe, and the wider world: Can any country safely outsource its national security to another power forever? For decades, many oil-rich Arab states relied heavily on U.S. protection. They hosted U.S. military bases, bought expensive weapons, paid for security arrangements, and trusted that the U.S. shield would be enough to deter any major threat.
That assumption is now under deep pressure.
The United States maintains a vast military footprint across the Middle East, including major facilities in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE, Iraq, Jordan, and other locations. These bases are equipped with advanced aircraft, air-defense systems, radars, missile batteries, command centers, naval assets, and intelligence platforms. In theory, this network was designed to protect U.S. interests, secure energy routes, reassure Gulf allies, and deter Iran. In practice, recent events have shown that even the most advanced military architecture can be vulnerable when facing a determined regional power with missiles, drones, and asymmetric capabilities.
Iran has lived under sanctions, isolation, and economic pressure for decades. Yet it still developed a serious missile and drone capability. This does not mean Iran is stronger than the United States; it is not. But it does show that modern warfare is no longer only about aircraft carriers, stealth fighters, and billion-dollar defense systems. A sanctioned country can still create pressure through cheaper, mobile, dispersed, and difficult-to-stop weapons. The battlefield has changed. The old myth of complete U.S. military invincibility has been shaken.
U.S. bases in the region have been targeted and damaged to a certain extent, and Arab host countries have discovered that hosting foreign power does not automatically guarantee immunity from war. In fact, protection can become exposure.
This is the central lesson for Arab states. For too long, some of them invested more in imported security than in sovereign defense capacity. Their armed forces were often built around regime protection, internal stability, border policing, and ceremonial strength rather than preparation for complex regional war. In some countries, security forces became more experienced in controlling expatriate labor, checking documents, protecting royal families, and maintaining internal order than in facing missile warfare, drone swarms, cyberattacks, or full-scale military escalation.
This model may have worked in peaceful periods, but it is not enough for the new era. A modern state cannot rely only on foreign bases and imported weapons. It needs trained personnel, local defense industries, integrated air defenses, civil defense systems, cyber resilience, emergency planning, strategic autonomy, and political wisdom. Real security is not purchased—it is built.
The lesson is not only for the Middle East; Europe must also think seriously. Since the Second World War, many European countries have lived under the U.S. security umbrella through NATO. This arrangement brought stability, but it also encouraged dependence. Europe became economically powerful but strategically incomplete. Many European states reduced defense capacity, neglected industrial preparedness, and assumed that Washington would always lead, always pay, and always protect.
That assumption is increasingly risky. The United States is facing internal polarization, changing strategic priorities, a rising focus on Asia, financial pressure, and public fatigue with foreign commitments. U.S. politics can change sharply from one administration to another. Europe must ask uncomfortable but necessary questions: if a major crisis comes, will Washington act quickly? Will U.S. voters accept another costly confrontation? Can Europe defend itself if U.S. support is delayed, reduced, or conditional? Is NATO strong because Europe is strong, or because the United States is strong?
These questions do not mean Europe should abandon NATO. NATO remains one of the most important security alliances in modern history. However, Europe must stop treating NATO as a substitute for European capability. An alliance is strongest when all members are capable, not when most members depend on one.
The way forward is clear. Arab states should diversify security partnerships, invest in domestic defense industries, develop missile and drone defense, strengthen regional diplomacy, and reduce their dependence on foreign military guarantees. They should also prioritize political settlement, because no defense system can protect a region that is permanently trapped in confrontation.
For the youth, especially Gen-Z, this debate is vital. They will inherit the consequences of today’s security choices. They must ask whether their countries are spending wisely, whether foreign alliances are balanced, whether war is being normalized, and whether diplomacy is being neglected. They should not accept slogans about superpowers, invincibility, or permanent protection without questioning them.
The Middle East crisis has exposed a hard truth: dependence is not security. A country that cannot defend itself, feed itself, power itself, or make independent decisions is never fully sovereign. The United States may remain powerful, but it cannot be everywhere, protect everyone, and absorb every risk. The Arab world and Europe must learn this lesson before the next crisis arrives.
Security in the twenty-first century must be sovereign, regional, technological, and diplomatic. The future belongs not to those who buy protection, but to those who build resilience.
中东战争与外包安全幻象的崩溃。
美国、以色列和伊朗之间最新一轮的升级，给中东、欧洲乃至更广泛的世界提出了一个严肃问题：任何国家能否永远安全地将国家安全外包给另一个国家？几十年来，许多石油资源丰富的阿拉伯国家严重依赖美国的保护。它们驻扎美军基地，购买昂贵武器，支付安保费用，并相信美国的盾牌足以抵御任何重大威胁。
这一假设现在正面临巨大压力。
美国在中东地区拥有庞大的军事存在，包括巴林、卡塔尔、科威特、阿联酋、伊拉克、约旦等地区的大型设施。这些基地配备了先进的飞机、防空系统、雷达、导弹发射阵地、指挥中心、海军资产以及情报平台。理论上，这一网络旨在保护美国利益、确保能源通道安全、安抚海湾盟友并威慑伊朗。然而，近期事件表明，即使是最先进的军事体系，在面对具备导弹、无人机和非对称能力的坚定地区强国时，也可能暴露脆弱。
伊朗几十年来一直遭受制裁、孤立和经济压力，却仍发展出强大的导弹和无人机能力。这并不意味着伊朗比美国更强大；事实并非如此。但它表明，现代战争已不再仅限于航空母舰、隐形战斗机和价值数十亿美元的防御系统。一个受制裁的国家仍可通过更便宜、更灵活、分散且难以拦截的武器施加压力。战场已经改变，美国军队绝对不可战胜的旧有神话已被打破。
美国在该地区的军事基地遭到袭击并受到一定程度的破坏，阿拉伯东道国也意识到，接纳外国势力并不自动意味着免于战争威胁。事实上，保护反而可能带来暴露的风险。
这是阿拉伯国家面临的核心教训。长期以来，一些国家在进口安全方面的投入远超本国国防能力的建设。其武装力量往往围绕政权保护、内部稳定、边境管控和仪式性力量展开，而非为应对复杂的地区战争做好准备。在某些国家，安全部队在控制外籍劳工、查验证件、保护王室成员以及维持国内秩序方面积累了更多经验，却比应对导弹战、无人机群、网络攻击或全面军事升级的能力更弱。
这种模式或许在和平时期有效，但已不足以应对新时代的挑战。一个现代国家不能仅依赖外国基地和进口武器，还需要训练有素的人员、本地国防工业、一体化防空系统、民防体系、网络韧性、应急规划、战略自主以及政治智慧。真正的安全并非购买而来，而是通过建设实现的。
这堂课不仅适用于中东，欧洲也必须认真思考。自第二次世界大战以来，许多欧洲国家一直通过北约在美国安全框架下生存。这一安排带来了稳定，但也助长了依赖。欧洲在经济上变得强大，但在战略上却存在不足。许多欧洲国家削减了国防能力，忽视了工业准备，并认为华盛顿将始终领导、始终支付费用并始终提供保护。
这一假设正变得越来越危险。美国正面临国内两极分化、战略重点的转变、对亚洲日益增长的关注、财政压力，以及公众对海外承诺的疲惫感。美国政治可能在每届政府之间发生剧烈变化。欧洲必须提出一些令人不安但必要的问题：如果出现重大危机，华盛顿会迅速采取行动吗？美国选民会接受又一次代价高昂的对抗吗？如果美国支持被延迟、减少或附加条件，欧洲能否自我保护？北约之所以强大，是因为欧洲强大，还是因为美国强大？
这些问题并不意味着欧洲应放弃北约。北约仍是现代历史上最重要的安全同盟之一。然而，欧洲必须停止将北约视为欧洲能力的替代品。一个联盟的强弱在于所有成员都具备能力，而不在于大多数成员依赖于某一个。
前进方向十分明确。阿拉伯国家应多元化安全伙伴关系，投资于国内国防工业，发展导弹和无人机防御能力，加强地区外交，并减少对外部军事保障的依赖。同时，应优先寻求政治解决，因为任何防御体系都无法保护一个长期陷入对峙状态的地区。
对年轻人，尤其是Z世代而言，这场辩论至关重要。他们将继承当今安全决策所带来的后果。他们必须思考，自己的国家是否在明智地花钱，外交联盟是否保持平衡，战争是否正在被常态化，以及外交是否被忽视。他们不应接受关于超级大国、不可战胜或永久保护的口号，而应加以质疑。
中东危机揭示了一个残酷的真相：依赖并非安全。一个无法保卫自己、养活自己、掌控自身或做出独立决策的国家，永远无法真正实现主权。美国或许仍具强大实力，但不可能无处不在，也无法保护所有人，承担一切风险。阿拉伯世界和欧洲必须在下一次危机来临之前，深刻领悟这一教训。
二十一世纪的安全必须具有主权性、区域性、技术性和外交性。未来不属于那些购买保护的人，而是属于那些构建韧性的人。
(注意： 本文是用AI翻译的，或有误差。请以原版英文为准。谢谢。)
Reference Link:- https://russiancouncil.ru/en/analytics-and-comments/columns/middle-east-policy/the-middle-east-war-and-the-collapse-of-the-outsourced-security-illusion/