The United States is increasing its military presence near Iran amid continuing tensions and conflicting signals from Washington. Donald Trump’s statements, the activity of the US Navy and the harsh rhetoric of its allies indicate that the confrontation around Tehran is entering a new phase, the outcome of which remains uncertain.
Another US naval group heads toward the Gulf
A second armada of American ships is heading for Iran, US President Donald Trump said, speaking at a rally in Iowa.
“By the way, there’s another beautiful armada floating beautifully toward Iran right now. So we’ll see,” Trump said. At the same time, the head of the White House expressed hope that Tehran would agree to a deal, without specifying what kind of agreement he was referring to.
Mixed signals from the White House
Earlier on Monday, Trump said that the situation surrounding Iran remained uncertain, but refused to disclose Washington’s possible plans. Axios, citing sources in the White House, reported that the US president is considering a military strike on Iran, despite the fact that, according to the American side, protest activity in the country has been “largely suppressed.” Last week, the US military confirmed the arrival of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in its area of responsibility in the Indian Ocean.
Donald Trump had previously threatened intervention on several occasions if the Iranian authorities continued their harsh crackdown on protests. However, since then, nationwide demonstrations in Iran have noticeably declined. The US president also said that, according to the information he had received, the number of killings had decreased and, in his opinion, the Iranian authorities currently had no plans for mass executions of prisoners.
Israel warns of “unprecedented” retaliation
Against the backdrop of escalating rhetoric, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued direct threats against Iran, warning of unprecedented consequences in the event of an attack on Israeli territory.
“We have dealt a serious blow to Iran and its terrorist proxies…If Iran makes a serious mistake and attacks Israel, we will respond with a force that Iran has never seen before,” Netanyahu said at a press conference.
Mass protests broke out in Iran last December amid a deteriorating socio-economic situation. The authorities of the Islamic Republic claimed that the US and Israel were behind the unrest. Data on the number of casualties vary significantly.
On January 23, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi officially reported 3,117 victims. Later, Time magazine, citing two anonymous sources in the Iranian Ministry of Health, gave an estimate of 30,000 deaths, while emphasising the impossibility of independently verifying this information.
Why a blockade would be far from simple
Most foreign military experts agree that a full-scale naval blockade of Iran would require not a limited operation, but a large-scale air campaign extending some 1,000 kilometres from the country’s southern coast. To implement such a scenario, the US would have to deploy more than one aircraft carrier strike group and enlist the help of its allies. In this regard, analysts recall the intense efforts of the carrier strike group led by the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) to inflict significant damage on the Houthis.
Even under these conditions, the Houthis continued their attacks and attempted to damage the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) in the Red Sea. In all cases, Iranian-made missiles and drones were used.
Experts say Iran is a fully-fledged state with a developed industrial base, a multi-layered air defence system of its own production, as well as imported models, including Chinese and, possibly, Russian complexes. The depth of the territory within which American aviation would have to operate in conditions of high vulnerability also plays a significant role. The question remains open as to whether Iran will decide to launch direct attacks on US aircraft carriers, demonstrating its readiness to defend itself to the end. Previous experience shows that Tehran has avoided such steps, even though it has the technical capabilities to do so.
Similar uncertainty remains regarding the possible blockade of the Strait of Hormuz: Iran is capable of doing so, but it is unclear whether it is prepared to take such a radical step.
A confrontation about survival and dominance
The key question in the current standoff between Iran and the US is whether Tehran views the situation as a threat to its survival, and Washington as an opportunity to finally destroy one of its main regional opponents.
For the US, Iran has remained a central strategic opponent in the Middle East for the past 45 years. Tehran is considered the leader of the so-called “Axis of Resistance,” around which a network of proxy groups has been built — from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip to the Houthis in Yemen and Shiite militias in Iraq. These structures actively oppose the interests of the United States and its allies.
In addition, Iran does not officially recognise the right of Israel, Washington’s key ally in the region, to exist. The weakening or replacement of the Iranian regime with a more loyal one would automatically increase Israel’s security. However, the price of such a scenario could be extremely high: if the Iranian leadership concludes that this is not a limited “exchange of blows” but an attempt to physically destroy the state, its response could be unpredictable.
The nuclear factor and the risk of escalation
An additional factor is the US’ desire to prevent the regime, which Washington considers unstable and unpredictable, from acquiring nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran could trigger a chain reaction in the region: Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt may also begin to seek nuclear weapons. This would lead to a sharp increase in instability, a weakening of American influence over its allies, and a veritable “parade of sovereignties” with unpredictable consequences.
In addition, regime change in Iran would open the way for Iranian oil to enter the world market in large volumes, which would lower prices and weaken the position of other exporters, including Russia. At the same time, the collapse of statehood in Iran could lead to civil war, large-scale refugee flows and the strengthening of terrorist groups — similar to what happened in Libya and Syria. A separate risk remains the possible blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which could trigger a global economic crisis.
What Washington really wants
Ultimately, everything comes down to the true goals of the US. If it is only a matter of demonstrating strength, then developments will likely be limited to another exchange of blows, as has happened before.
However, if Washington is considering a scenario of regime change in Tehran, then for Iran it will become a matter of physical survival. Whether Tehran is prepared to go all the way in such a case, including the destruction of at least one American aircraft carrier and strikes on key US targets on land, remains an open question. At the same time, Iran has more than enough resources, room for manoeuvre and instruments of pressure.
