American buildup against Iran amidst regional alignment fractures

In a new indication of escalating tensions in the Middle East, an Israeli report revealed that both Jordan and the UAE are prepared to provide political and logistical support for any potential American attack on Iran, at a time when American military and diplomatic movements in the region are accelerating. This leak comes amidst ambiguity surrounding the positions of other Western allies, most notably Britain, which appeared to be far from any clear commitment, especially after statements by US President Donald Trump downplaying the role of allies during the war in Afghanistan, raising questions about the future of Washington's traditional alliances.

The Israeli report in the newspaper "Israel Hayom," owned by Miriam Adelson, a supporter of US President Donald Trump who backed him with $100 million in his last election campaign, coincided with the arrival of the commander of the US Central Command (CENTCOM), Admiral Brad Cooper, in Israel, where he held intensive meetings with senior Israeli security officials. According to Israeli security sources, the level of military coordination between the two sides reached an unprecedented degree, including plans for exchanging highly sensitive intelligence information, enhancing logistical cooperation, and linking air defense systems in preparation for confronting what is described as the "Iranian threat."

However, this escalatory scene does not receive regional consensus. Several Arab sources, including an Arab diplomat and a Gulf official, expressed grave concern about the repercussions of any American-Israeli strike on Iran. Gulf countries fear that their territories and military bases could become direct targets if a widespread confrontation erupts, especially in light of Tehran's explicit pledge to target American bases and Israel if attacked.

In this context, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Qatar led intensive diplomatic efforts to dissuade Washington from pursuing the option of war, realizing that any military escalation could spiral out of control and redraw the map of fragile stability in the Gulf. The UAE's position remains ambiguous, as signals from Emirati officials and experts contradict between public caution and undeclared involvement in security arrangements led by Washington.

The escalation was not limited to political and military coordination but was practically translated by President Trump's decision to amass a large military force in the Middle East. In striking statements, Trump said that "a large force is heading towards Iran," emphasizing that its purpose is to prepare "for any contingency," without ruling out the option of using it. This buildup includes the aircraft carrier group "USS Abraham Lincoln," a squadron of F-15 fighters, in addition to advanced air defense systems.

This buildup brings to mind the scenario of last June, when Trump ordered the deployment of similar military assets before Israel launched a widespread war against Iran. Although the US military was, according to informed sources, on high alert to carry out direct strikes against Iran earlier this month, Trump backed down from issuing the order, after a growing conviction—reinforced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—that the strike would not lead to the overthrow of the Iranian regime and could drag Washington into a long and complex confrontation.

Nevertheless, strengthening the military presence gives the US administration broader options, whether to launch a more comprehensive attack or to contain any potential Iranian response. Washington realizes that any confrontation will not be without cost, especially given Iran's missile capabilities, which proved effective during the recent escalation, when several missiles fell inside Israel.

In parallel with the military escalation, the White House continues its economic war against Tehran. The US Treasury Department announced new sanctions on nine ships suspected of transporting sanctioned Iranian oil, in a move aimed at choking off vital revenue sources for the Islamic Republic. Washington also expanded its measures to include the seizure of Venezuelan oil tankers, sending a clear message that sanctions have become a parallel tool of war to weapons.

This American escalation reflects a mixture of deterrence and showmanship, more than it reflects a clear strategy. Washington is amassing power to send a political message to Iran and its allies, but at the same time, it recognizes the limits of military force in overthrowing entrenched regimes. This contradiction reproduces the policy of "brinkmanship," which may achieve short-term tactical gains but leaves the region hostage to miscalculation and unintended slide into a comprehensive war.

Experts believe that the most dangerous aspect of the current scene is the fragility and contradiction of regional positions. While some countries are pushed towards a security alignment with Washington, others are working to curb escalation for fear of an explosion. This division weakens any collective effort to contain the crisis and turns the region into a testing ground for conflicting international wills, where the security of small and medium-sized countries becomes merely a detail in the calculations of major powers.