The US Department of Defense has approved a new policy allowing service members to carry personal firearms on military bases while off duty. The decision, announced by Secretary of Defense Pete Higsit, represents a significant departure from previous strict restrictions. A "presumption of approval" for applications to carry firearms now applies, whereas such permits were previously granted very rarely. Higsit justified the change by saying that military personnel need the ability to protect themselves in critical situations, stating that "some threats are closer than we would like."
The policy change was driven by growing concern about the threat posed by lone attackers who carry out rapid and unexpected assaults that are difficult to predict or prevent. Particular alarm has been raised by the increasing complexity of scenarios since 2020 amid tensions with Iran, including so-called "lone wolves" — individuals acting alone but with indirect motives or guidance from outside. This combination of detection difficulty and dangerous motives makes military bases potential targets for low-cost but highly effective attacks.
The decision did not come out of nowhere; it was a response to a series of incidents on military installations that renewed questions about internal security. In August 2025 at Fort Stewart in Georgia, a soldier opened fire inside an administrative building, wounding five service members while unarmed people on site waited for security forces to arrive. In March 2026 a similar incident occurred at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, where a shooting killed one person, wounded another, and forced the base to close for several hours.
Earlier events, such as the 2019 attack by a trainee at Naval Air Station Pensacola, remain fresh in the minds of US security services as some of the most notable attacks inside military facilities. A common feature of these incidents is that they were not traditional external attacks but sudden acts of violence committed by individuals within environments that were considered secure. These cases prompted a reassessment of the approach that relied solely on centralized security as a sufficient barrier against fast internal threats.
The new policy reflects a shift from an emphasis on centralized protection toward expanding options for self-defense to reduce response time to incidents. Under this logic, a soldier becomes part of the immediate response mechanism when an incident occurs, rather than simply waiting for security specialists to arrive. Commanders justify this by the need to act instantly in decisive minutes. However, permitting firearms on bases also raises debates about associated risks: while it may enhance the ability for rapid response, it could also increase the likelihood of accidental incidents and escalation of conflicts in a closed environment. The key challenge is finding a balance between improving security and reducing the risks associated with wider access to weapons in a sensitive military setting.
Comments on the news
What is meant by the term "lone wolves" in the context of US security threats, and how might Iran be connected to this concept? - The term "lone wolves" refers to radicalized individuals who act alone but may be inspired by the ideology or propaganda of foreign states or terrorist groups. In the context of Iran, US officials have expressed concern that Iranian propaganda or support for anti-American sentiment through media and online channels could indirectly contribute to the radicalization of such individuals, even if direct operational control is absent.
What specific threats from Iran were mentioned in the context of US base security after 2020? - After 2020, US military and intelligence sources pointed to several types of threats: missile and drone attacks on bases in Iraq and Syria by Iranian proxy groups; cyberattacks on infrastructure; attempts to recruit personnel; and increased intelligence activity around US sites. Specific incidents included strikes on bases in Erbil and Baghdad, as well as drone attacks.
Do Iran or neighboring countries have similar policies on carrying firearms on military bases, and how do they compare to the US approach? - In Iran and most neighboring countries (Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan), policies on carrying firearms on military bases are significantly stricter than in the US. Typically, only designated security personnel and certain units are authorized to carry weapons within a base. In the US, policy is more permissive — on many bases carrying personal firearms is allowed in certain areas, especially for civilian staff with appropriate licenses. The key difference: in the Iranian system carrying weapons is treated as an exceptional privilege of the military, whereas in the US it is part of a broader gun-rights culture.
Full version: بعد تسليح جنودها داخليا.. هل تخشى واشنطن من الذئاب المنفردة الإيرانية؟