After arming its soldiers internally…Does Washington fear Iranian lone wolves? | news

In a remarkable shift in American security doctrine, the US Department of War approved a new policy that allows military personnel to carry their personal weapons inside bases outside of duty hours, in a move that reflects a profound reassessment of the nature of the threats these facilities face.

The decision, announced by War Secretary Pete Hegseth, is based on the principle of “presuming approval” for requests to carry weapons, after this was subject to strict restrictions that made approvals rare.

Hegseth explained in his letter that “some threats are closer than we would like,” stressing that the military must be able to protect themselves in critical moments.

Escalating anxiety from lone wolf to guiding wolf

The decision cannot be separated from a broader security context, in which Washington is dealing with the escalation of the “lone attacker” pattern, that is, an individual carrying out a rapid and sudden attack that is difficult to predict or prevent in advance.

But the concern does not stop there. With the escalation of tension with Iran since 2020, security concerns have emerged from a more complex scenario. Individuals who appear to act alone, but with indirect motivation or guidance from external parties.

This pattern – which can be described as “wolf-guided” – combines the difficulty of detection of an individual attacker with the seriousness of motives associated with international conflicts.

In this context, military bases become potential targets for low-cost, high-impact attacks.

The shift in policy did not come out of nowhere, but was based on a series of incidents inside American military bases that re-posed the question of security from within.

Internal incidents… when the danger comes from the base itself

In August 2025, the Fort Stewart base in Georgia witnessed a shooting incident carried out by a soldier against his colleagues inside an administrative building, which resulted in the injury of five soldiers, while those who were at the site tried to control it without weapons, waiting for security intervention.

In March 2026, the scene was repeated at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, where gunfire killed one person and injured another, with the base closed for hours.

As for the Pensacola naval incident in 2019, it remained present in American security memory, after it was carried out by a trainee inside the base, causing deaths and injuries, in one of the most prominent attacks that targeted a military facility from within.

These incidents have a common denominator; They were not conventional attacks from abroad, but rather sudden incidents of violence, carried out by individuals inside supposedly fortified environments.

A shift in belief… from protection to self-response

The decision reflects a growing conviction within the administration of US President Donald Trump and his Defense Minister Hegseth that military bases are no longer threatened only from the outside, but also from sudden internal threats that could be carried out by a single individual within minutes.

In light of this perception, relying on central security is no longer sufficient. Rather, the priority has become to reduce response time. Hence, the soldier turns from an element within the protection system into a part of the response mechanism itself.

While previous policies were based on restricting weapons within the bases, the new approach is based on enabling individuals to use them to defend themselves, based on the assumption that danger may be present at any moment.

Between deterrence and risks

However, this shift opens the door to a broader discussion. While arming soldiers may contribute to enhancing the ability to respond quickly to sudden threats, it may also increase the possibility of accidental incidents or escalation of conflicts within a closed environment.

The irony is that some of the incidents used to justify the decision came from within the base itself, rather than from external attacks, which raises questions about whether the solution addresses the problem or redistributes it.