Analysis: U.S. military buildup in the Middle East raises specter of war with Iran as diplomacy stalls
The arrival of the USS Gerald R. Ford — the world’s largest aircraft carrier — at a U.S. naval base on Crete has turned a simmering standoff with Iran into a test of resolve and restraint. With the USS Abraham Lincoln already in the region, hundreds of fighter jets, and critical enabling assets such as refueling tankers and airborne warning and control systems in place, Washington has amassed its most formidable presence in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq — and the world is taking notice.
- Advertisement -
To supporters of a harder line, the build-up is overdue leverage to curb Iran’s ambitions; to others, it is a perilous glidepath toward a conflict that could spiral across the region. “Apart from the number of ships and aircraft that they’ve got there, they’ve got a lot of the backup forces that you need to conduct quite a prolonged military campaign,” said Michael Clarke, a visiting professor at King’s College London.
President Donald Trump has matched the muscle with rhetoric. In his State of the Union address Tuesday, he vowed never to allow “the world’s number one sponsor of terror to have a nuclear weapon,” and accused Tehran of developing missiles that could soon reach the United States. That assertion appeared to contradict U.S. intelligence assessments of Iran’s missile capabilities.
Just hours earlier, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe briefed top lawmakers behind closed doors on what was described as a potential threat. “This is serious,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said afterward. “The administration has to make its case to the American people.”
Diplomatic efforts are struggling to keep pace. A third round of talks between U.S. and Iranian negotiators in Geneva on Thursday was described by the Iranian side as showing “good progress,” but yielded no breakthrough on the core dispute: Tehran insists its nuclear program is civilian and legal; Washington has signaled that no level of enrichment is acceptable. The U.S. delegation — led by Jared Kushner and special Middle East representative Steve Witkoff — said little publicly, suggesting officials want to keep options open. Another meeting is slated Monday with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Tehran, meanwhile, is calibrating defiance and deterrence. Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said Iran favors diplomacy but is prepared to deliver “a remorseful response that would make any aggressor regret their malicious behaviour.” Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, posting on X, wrote that even the “strongest military force in the world may at times be struck so hard that it cannot get up again.”
Washington appears to be bracing for contingencies. The U.S. Embassy in Beirut has ordered the evacuation of nonessential staff. In Israel, Ambassador Mike Huckabee urged personnel who wished to leave to “do so TODAY,” according to the New York Times, while cautioning there was “no need to panic.”
The optics of power carry their own momentum. “He’s painted himself into a corner by having such a big military buildup,” Clarke told RTÉ News, warning that public expectations harden once a president signals readiness to use force. There are also practical limits: “You can’t keep everything keyed up, all the engines ready without replacing them… you’ve either got to use it or stand it down after two to three weeks,” he said, estimating the clock is already running. Reports of technical strains aboard the USS Ford have filtered out as the posture stretches on.
The regional and economic stakes are acute. U.S. partners — Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Türkiye and Egypt — have urged restraint, fearing both retaliation by Iran or its proxies (including the Houthis, Hezbollah and groups in Iraq) and the chaos that could follow a destabilized Iran, a nation of roughly 93 million people. Europe, too, would face the prospect of a refugee surge and fresh geopolitical strain. And any conflict that chokes the Strait of Hormuz — a corridor for about one-fifth of the world’s crude oil and a quarter of its liquefied natural gas — could send energy prices and global inflation sharply higher.
Israel has taken a more hawkish line. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the government is “keeping an eye open and prepared for any scenario,” and warned Tehran that an attack on Israel would invite a response “with a force they cannot imagine.” The American footprint, in part, is designed to deter such a move and to shield Israel should hostilities break out.
Trump has gestured at swift, decisive action, invoking the two-hour U.S. special forces raid that seized Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January. “Like with Venezuela, [the U.S. military] is ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary,” he wrote on Truth Social. But analysts caution that Iran is no Venezuela: it is three times as populous, far more complex politically and militarily, and benefits from support and technology from Russia, China and North Korea.
Domestic unease is growing. In an open letter Thursday, 90 U.S. veterans of post‑9/11 wars urged the administration to “reject calls for regime change wars and instead prioritise sustained, serious diplomacy,” adding, “Pursuing peace through strength requires wisdom, not perpetual conflict.” That wariness is shaped by history. In 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower authorized a covert CIA operation to topple Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, an intervention that reverberates through Iranian politics. Since the 1979 revolution, U.S. presidents have generally favored sanctions and pressure over direct military confrontation.
Trump, however, has signaled confidence, recently brushing aside concerns reportedly raised by Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about risks of a campaign. The general believed a war could be “easily won,” Trump wrote on social media. The president has also cast himself as a potential peacemaker, encouraging Iranians to “keep protesting” amid economic turmoil and promising that “help” was on the way. Rights groups say thousands were killed in the subsequent crackdown.
The sum of signals — heavy deployments, stark presidential language, embassy drawdowns, and fitful talks — points to a moment of maximum pressure and minimum margin for error. Whether this is coercive diplomacy or prelude to strikes may hinge on the next several days: the IAEA meeting, any further movement in Geneva, and Iran’s messaging as it calibrates response and deterrence.
The costs of miscalculation would be vast. As Ellie Geranmayeh of the European Council on Foreign Relations wrote, the “moral imperative to protect civilians” and the “strategic allure of punishing the regime in Tehran” must be weighed against “the limits of Western influence and the dangers of prolonged war with Iran.” After the hard lessons of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, she warned, the risks of deeper military intervention remain “severe,” with no assurance of a durable benefit to Iranians on the ground.
For now, Washington appears to be keeping every option open — the carriers on station, the envoys in Geneva, the allies on edge. If the administration’s goal is leverage, it has certainly created it. If the goal is deterrence, time and logistics may soon demand a reset. Between those two poles lies the most consequential decision of Trump’s presidency: whether to fire the shot, or find an exit ramp.
By Abdiwahab Ahmed
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
