The latest standoff between the United States and Iran has reached a critical juncture, with Washington seemingly ready to strike. At the heart of the crisis, marked by aggressive military mobilisation and shattered diplomatic channels is Washington’s demand for a new nuclear agreement and Tehran’s refusal to negotiate under the threat of force.
The US has deployed a large naval flotilla to the Arabian Sea, described by President Donald Trump as an “armada”. Led by the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, the force includes destroyers armed with Tomahawk missiles and is backed by significant air power, including stealth F-35 fighters and F-15E strike aircraft stationed in Jordan. Trump has claimed the deployment exceeds the scale of forces used before the recent US intervention in Venezuela, warning that the military stands ready to act with “speed and violence” if required.
Iranian leaders have responded by signalling a heightened state of military readiness. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iranian forces have their “fingers on the trigger” and would respond immediately to any aggression. The Iranian army has announced the induction of 1,000 new strategic drones, including suicide and reconnaissance platforms, aimed at countering the US presence. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has also reiterated its ability to strike US assets across the region and to target Tel Aviv with ballistic missiles.
For latest news and analyses on Middle East, visit: Yello! Middle East
This confrontation is closely linked to the 12-day war in June, when the US and Israel carried out “Operation Midnight Hammer”, a series of airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. While the Trump administration claimed the operation “obliterated” or “significantly degraded” Iran’s nuclear programme, intelligence assessments paint a more ambiguous picture.
Iranian officials have asserted that sensitive nuclear materials were relocated ahead of the strikes, limiting their impact. Western intelligence suggests that although centrifuges were destroyed, much of the fissile material survived. Iran has since begun excavating deeper underground facilities to shield its programme from future bunker-busting munitions. US officials fear Tehran is rebuilding its weapons potential, citing reports that Iran has accumulated uranium enriched to 60 per cent, a level with no credible civilian justification.
An important shift in Washington’s rhetoric has accompanied the military escalation. In December and early this month, Iran was shaken by nationwide protests triggered by currency collapse, which quickly evolved into a crisis of legitimacy for the clerical establishment. The ensuing crackdown was brutal, with estimates of fatalities ranging from 6,000 to more than 30,000.
Initially, Trump cited these human rights abuses as a central grievance, telling Iranian protesters that “help is on the way”. More recently, the White House has refocused on the nuclear issue. Trump has said the armada is intended to force Iran to “come to the table” and accept a deal that permanently blocks nuclear weapons. This shift may reflect a recognition that airpower alone cannot topple the regime, or a desire to secure a clear foreign policy victory akin to the recent intervention in Venezuela.
Diplomatic efforts to defuse the crisis are intense but stalled. Qatar, Turkey and Oman are attempting to mediate, yet talks remain deadlocked over preconditions. The US is demanding a halt to uranium enrichment, the dismantling of Iran’s ballistic missile programme and an end to support for regional proxy groups. Iran rejects negotiations under what it calls “coercion, threats and intimidation”, insisting that sanctions be lifted and arguing that its missile programme is a necessary deterrent against Israel. The sanctions have devastated the economy, pushing the rial to nearly 1.5 million to the dollar.
According to The New York Times, Trump is weighing several military options. One involves covertly deploying US commandos to destroy or severely damage nuclear facilities that survived last June’s bombing. Another envisions strikes against military and leadership targets aimed at creating internal turmoil that could enable Iranian security forces or rival factions to remove the 86-year-old Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This scenario raises profound uncertainties about who would govern Iran in the aftermath and whether any successor would be more open to engagement with Washington.
Trump’s thinking is also shaped by personal security concerns. Federal prosecutors in New York revealed last year that Iranian operatives had discussed plans to assassinate him shortly before his re-election. Israel, meanwhile, is urging a third course of action: renewed joint strikes on Iran’s ballistic missile programme, which intelligence officials say has been largely rebuilt since Israel’s attacks during the June war.
Across the region, anxiety is mounting. Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, having witnessed Iranian retaliation against a US base in Qatar in June, have refused to allow their airspace to be used for further strikes. They fear any new conflict would quickly expand beyond military targets. Iranian officials have warned that if attacked, they would strike the launch points of aggression regardless of the host country.
Inside Iran, civilians face a grim outlook. Authorities have announced civil defence measures, including the construction of underground shelters and emergency powers allowing border provinces to import food. Yet vulnerabilities remain acute. Tehran’s mayor has acknowledged that new shelters would take years to complete.
The situation remains volatile. While Secretary of State Marco Rubio insists the US military posture is “defensive”, intended to protect the 30,000 to 40,000 American troops stationed in the region, the forces in place offer Trump a wide range of offensive options, from limited strikes to a full decapitation strategy. Iran, for its part, is relying on the threat of asymmetric warfare, leveraging its “Axis of Resistance” and missile arsenal to raise the costs of conflict for both the US and Israel.