Here's a thought: maybe having a bunch of permanent, expensive military bases sitting in the middle of a volatile region isn't the best strategic move. That's essentially what Anthony Scaramucci, the former White House communications director turned SkyBridge Capital founder, is arguing after fresh reports detailed extensive Iranian damage to U.S. facilities across the Gulf.

In a post on X late Wednesday, Scaramucci said it's time to rethink what he calls a "forever-basing empire." He suggests the U.S. would be better protected by a "lean, naval, over-the-horizon posture"—basically, keeping forces more mobile and harder to hit at sea, rather than anchored to costly and vulnerable land bases. He puts the price tag of the current approach at a cool $1 trillion in liability for the administration.

So, how bad is the damage? Scaramucci, citing New York Times reporting, said at least 17 U.S. sites across the Middle East have been hit, including installations in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. The report details damage to 11 military installations, along with diplomatic and air-defense sites. The situation has gotten so dicey that, according to later reporting, many troops have been moved into hotels and office spaces and are effectively operating remotely because repeated strikes have made some facilities unusable.

Let's talk money. Scaramucci's post also pointed to a BBC analysis, which itself relied on work by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. That analysis estimates Iranian retaliatory strikes caused about $800 million in damage to U.S.-used military bases in just the first two weeks of the conflict. The war is now in its fourth week, so that figure has almost certainly grown, though updated official estimates haven't been released. Scaramucci's point is clear: the current model is like leaving very expensive, stationary targets in a shooting gallery, and the bill for repairs is getting out of hand.

All this debate is happening against a backdrop of incredibly fragile diplomacy. MarketDash reported Wednesday that Iran's state-backed Press TV said Tehran had rejected points sent by the Trump administration through an intermediary, mocked Washington for "negotiating with yourselves," but had earlier said it was reviewing terms. It's a diplomatic dance that seems to be going nowhere fast.

Meanwhile, the rhetoric from the White House remains intense. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a briefing on Wednesday that talks were still underway but warned President Donald Trump would "unleash hell" if no deal were reached. It's the kind of high-stakes, high-pressure environment where the cost of your military strategy—both in dollars and in vulnerability—really comes into focus.

Scaramucci's argument boils down to a simple, if controversial, idea: before the next conflict bleeds the U.S. dry, maybe it's time to stop investing so heavily in assets that are so easy to bleed.