Washington re-mobilizes its military force in the Middle East in preparation for a war on Iran

Washington – Saeed Erikat

Recent American military movements in the Middle East reveal a gradual escalatory climate, reflecting serious preparation for a potential military confrontation with Iran, despite US President Donald Trump's decision to postpone a direct strike. According to a report published by the New York Times, the US Department of Defense has begun to strengthen its military presence in the region, in a clear effort to fill deterrence gaps revealed by the military assessments themselves.

According to American officials, the aircraft carrier "USS Abraham Lincoln" and a number of warships belonging to its strike group (13 naval units) are making their way from the South China Sea towards the Middle East, on a journey that will last about a week. The reinforcements also include sending squadrons of fighter jets, aerial refueling aircraft, in addition to additional air defense systems, in an unmistakable sign of raising the level of combat readiness.

Cross-referenced reports indicate that the American military establishment explicitly informed Trump that the current American deployment is insufficient to contain any potential Iranian response, especially if it targets American bases spread across more than one country in the region. The Pentagon also warned that any limited strikes would not lead to regime change in Tehran, but might draw the United States into a long-term war of attrition, with exorbitant political and military costs.

In the same context, the New York Times report (later confirmed by the Axios platform) stated that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked Trump to postpone any attack on Iran, wishing to gain more time to prepare for a potential Iranian response. This request seems consistent with Israel's increasing reliance on the American military umbrella, especially after the failure of interception systems to prevent a number of Iranian missiles from reaching Israeli territory during the June 2025 war, which accelerated the acceptance of a ceasefire after 12 days.

On the other hand, it cannot be ruled out that these leaks and postponements are part of a strategic deception campaign aimed at keeping Tehran on edge, while actual war preparations are conducted away from the spotlight, as happened before the outbreak of the "Twelve Days" war.

The White House continues to market a moral narrative for the escalation, claiming that Trump's threats prompted Iran to postpone scheduled executions, warning of "consequences" if repression continues. However, internal unrest in Iran appears, in this context, to be merely an additional pretext added to a long record of justifications used to normalize the option of war.

It is worth noting that after the Iranian nuclear program was the central pretext for the June war, Trump expanded the circle of threats to include the conventional missile program, announcing, during his meeting with Netanyahu in Mar-a-Lago at the end of last December, his support for any Israeli attack if Tehran "continued" to develop its missiles. However, ignoring the fact that ballistic missiles represent Iran's only remaining deterrence tool reveals the narrowness of this logic, and its danger at the same time.

Recent American moves reflect a structural contradiction in strategy: a desire for deterrence without bearing the consequences of war. Strengthening military assets does not necessarily mean an immediate intention to attack, but it reveals the fragility of previous assessments that assumed the possibility of "striking Iran" without a widespread response. This logic reproduces the illusions of quick wars, ignoring the nature of the asymmetric conflict and Tehran's ability to expand the scope of confrontation regionally.

Experts believe that the most dangerous aspect of the scene is the transformation of every Iranian file—nuclear, missile, or internal—into a ready justification for war, which eliminates any real diplomatic horizon. The American-Israeli approach does not seek to change Iran's behavior as much as it seeks to strategically subjugate it, a goal that has historically proven to be achievable only through immense human and political costs, often far exceeding the calculations of decision-makers.