Reyhane Hejazi - Trump has been explicit: “We’re sending an Armada over there… I’d prefer that nothing happens, but we’re watching them very closely.” U.S. officials have also informally confirmed that the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, along with several guided-missile destroyers, will soon enter the region.
This move expands Washington’s military options, but does not necessarily signal a decision to go to war. Military analysts argue that the deployment of an aircraft carrier is less a prelude to full-scale conflict than a tool of deterrence, psychological pressure, and management of the adversary’s calculations.
Experience shows that the United States tends to engage in major wars only when it enjoys overwhelming superiority or believes the cost of retaliation will be minimal. In Iran’s case, that assumption has increasingly been called into question.
The recent 12-day confrontation between Iran and Israel—despite Iran’s limited use of its missile capabilities—sent a clear message to Washington and its allies: the level of risk has risen sharply.
Missiles that struck critical Israeli infrastructure, including the Haifa refinery and the Weizmann Institute, demonstrated that even restrained Iranian responses can impose serious economic and security costs.
An Israeli security analyst told Western media: “A direct attack on Iran is no longer a viable option; Israel cannot absorb the consequences.” For Washington, the message is clear: any military action, even if carefully limited, could trigger a chain reaction that would be difficult to control.
Within this context, Tehran has sought to make its deterrent messages more explicit and concrete. Rear Admiral Akbarzadeh, deputy commander of the IRGC Navy, recently stated: “Smart control of the Strait of Hormuz is fully in Iran’s hands, and there is no longer any need for traditional mine-laying. The enemy does not dare launch a military attack on Iran; these movements are merely aimed at imposing negotiations with preconditions.”
Major General Seyed Majid Mousavi, commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force, responding to Trump’s threats, said: “Trump talks a lot. He should be sure that we will respond on the battlefield.”
Meanwhile, Admiral Ali Shamkhani, the Supreme Leader’s representative on Iran’s Defense Council, remarked: “To escape the demands of others who want to impose their will on him, Trump could at least use more elegant language.”
These statements are not merely rhetorical. The Strait of Hormuz sees the daily transit of roughly 21 million barrels of crude oil, nearly a quarter of global consumption.
In addition, around 30 to 40 percent of the world’s liquefied natural gas (LNG)—primarily from Qatar—passes through these same sea lanes. Any sustained disruption would shock not only the regional economy but the global energy market as a whole, a scenario even U.S. allies are keen to avoid. The threats are not confined to the Persian Gulf.
Yahya Saree, spokesperson for Yemen’s armed forces, warned that in the event of a U.S. attack on Iran, “all American ships in the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait will be targeted.”
This means that if the United States were to clash with Iran, it would simultaneously have to secure two critical arteries of global energy and trade—Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab—a mission that would be extremely costly and risky even with U.S. naval superiority.
Months of U.S. confrontation with Yemen, without clear strategic gains, have already underscored these limitations. Media reports indicate that Tehran has warned regional countries in its messages that any military action would target not only U.S. forces but also the bases of its allies in the region, a position conveyed directly to neighboring capitals.
These warnings have prompted countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar to caution, in their official responses, against escalating tensions, stressing that any conflict could have long-term consequences for energy markets and regional security.
Taken together, these data points lead observers to a clear conclusion: Trump is not seeking a large-scale war with Iran. Rather, he appears to be pursuing a controlled hostile action—one that:
delivers a symbolic or operational blow,
does not escalate into full-scale war,
minimizes direct U.S. casualties,
and simultaneously places Iran under psychological and political pressure.
This move could take the form of a limited operation, maritime pressure, indirect strikes against Iran’s regional allies, or even an intensified economic blockade.
Trump’s decision ultimately hinges on one key factor: Washington’s perception of Iran’s internal cohesion. As past experience has shown, any sign of military readiness, social unity, or coherent political messaging can alter U.S. calculations and push the level of action downward.