The current surge in U.S. military power in the Gulf region is leaning more towards preparation than mere signaling.
The arrival of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln near Iranian waters marks a significant escalation. Adding to this formidable display, a second carrier, the USS Gerald R Ford, was recently spotted near the Strait of Gibraltar and has since been directed eastward to support potential operations. Other military assets have also been relocated to the area, reinforcing the perception that Washington is assembling a robust, layered set of military options.
Such a substantial deployment of forces could serve as powerful leverage in diplomatic negotiations. However, when combined, these movements also suggest that indirect talks between Tehran and Washington may have reached an impasse—a stalemate that could quickly be followed by military action if neither side reconsiders its position. This precarious situation prompts a fundamental question: why do Iranian leaders, at least publicly, continue to defy the world’s most powerful military? The answer, it appears, lies in the stringent conditions Washington has set for any dialogue.
US demands viewed as surrender terms
From Tehran’s perspective, these demands are not a basis for negotiation, but rather a blueprint for surrender. The conditions include a complete halt to uranium enrichment, a reduction in the range of ballistic missiles to no longer threaten Israel, an end to support for armed groups across the region, and, as U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has stated, a fundamental shift in how Iran treats its own citizens. For the Iranian leadership, these are not peripheral policies; they constitute the very core of what they consider their national security architecture.
Lacking powerful international allies, Tehran has dedicated decades to constructing what it terms the “Axis of Resistance.” This intricate network of armed groups is strategically designed to deflect direct confrontation away from Iran’s borders and shift pressure closer to Israel. Its existence is seen as vital for regional influence and defense.
Tehran’s ballistic missile program serves as a critical substitute for its aging air force and its limited access to advanced military technology. Meanwhile, the nuclear program, though officially declared for peaceful purposes, is widely perceived as a potent deterrent. Even without weaponization, mastering the uranium enrichment cycle creates what strategists refer to as “threshold capability.” This involves an infrastructure that only requires a political decision to transition to military use, with that latent capacity itself functioning as significant leverage. Eliminating these crucial elements, in Tehran’s view, would dismantle the very foundations of its deterrence strategy.
Risks for the Supreme Leader
From the perspective of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, accepting these terms might appear more perilous than risking a limited conflict with the United States. A military confrontation, however costly, might be deemed manageable. A total strategic capitulation, however, likely would not. Yet, the risks embedded in this calculation are immense, and they extend far beyond Iran’s borders.
Any U.S. campaign could target senior leadership in its initial phases. Should Khamenei be killed, it would not only end his reign of over three decades but also destabilize the succession process during a period of acute vulnerability. Strikes against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and other security institutions could also weaken an apparatus that recently reasserted control after being rocked by the largest wave of protests in the Islamic Republic’s history. The demonstrators who filled the streets in recent weeks—and were only subdued by overwhelming force—remain deeply discontent. A sudden blow to the state’s coercive machinery could unpredictably shift the domestic balance of power.
Tehran might assume that Washington’s objectives would be confined to degrading its nuclear and missile capabilities. However, wars rarely unfold according to initial assumptions. Miscalculations regarding targets, duration, or political impact can rapidly expand a conflict’s scope. Economic pressure adds another layer of risk. Iran’s economy, already reeling from sanctions, inflation, and declining purchasing power, would struggle to absorb further shocks. Disruptions to oil exports or damage to infrastructure would exacerbate public anger, which has been suppressed rather than resolved. In this context, defiance serves multiple purposes: it signals resolve externally and projects strength internally, but it also significantly narrows the room for compromise.
Risks for Washington
The risks confronting Washington are no less significant.
On paper, the U.S. military possesses the capacity to achieve the Commander-in-Chief’s objectives should tensions escalate. But wars are not fought on paper. They are shaped by miscalculations, escalations, and unforeseen consequences. The recent 12-day conflict involving Israel, for instance, exposed vulnerabilities within Iran’s command structure and military infrastructure. However, it also offered valuable lessons in adaptation—how to absorb attacks, recalibrate, and respond under intense pressure. A broader confrontation could yield outcomes unintended by either party. A weakened central authority in Tehran would not automatically align with Western interests. A power vacuum could instead produce fragmented or radicalized centers of influence, complicating the regional balance in ways neither Washington nor its allies desire.
Ayatollah Khamenei now faces a stark set of unfavorable choices. Accepting Washington’s conditions risks eroding the regime’s strategic deterrence capabilities, while rejecting them increases the likelihood of confrontation at a moment of significant internal vulnerability. Between what he likely perceives as the “worst” option—strategic surrender—and the “best of the worst”—a limited but controllable war—Tehran appears, at least publicly, to be leaning towards the latter.
- U.S. deploys fighter jets and warships near Iran
- Iran willing to negotiate with U.S. – ‘Conditions must be free from threats and unreasonable expectations’
- What are the possible scenarios if the U.S. attacks Iran?
- Israel determined to overthrow Iranian regime – Netanyahu’s big gamble
- How does Iran’s military power compare to Israel’s?
- Who is Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and how influential is his family?
- What are the possible scenarios if the U.S. attacks Iran?
- Iran willing to negotiate with U.S. – ‘Conditions must be free from threats and unreasonable expectations’
- U.S. joining Israel in attacking Iran would create ‘catastrophe’ – What is the UK’s position?