Talks on Conflict? US-Iran Tensions Escalate as Nuclear Diplomacy Hangs in the Balance
While the drumbeats of war between the United States and Iran seemed to have quieted down after indirect talks between the two sides in Oman on February 6, the threat has again escalated with the US decision to deploy the USS Gerald R. Ford to the Middle East to join the USS Abraham Lincoln. The Gerald R. Ford is being redirected from a long-term deployment in the Caribbean. The move reflects preparation for a “sustained, multi-week military campaign” rather than just a single strike, indicating the serious nature of the current standoff.
The deployment is part of a deliberate, reinforced strategy to pressure Tehran to accept a nuclear deal, with President Trump warning of “traumatic” consequences if negotiations fail. President Trump has stated that the fleet is a “just in case” measure if diplomacy fails, warning of “very traumatic” consequences if a deal is not reached quickly.
The Diplomatic Context
Just weeks ago, there was cautious optimism. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called the talks a “good start,” and President Trump described them as “very good.” The language of diplomacy was positive, if guarded.
However, there remained fundamental policy differences between the two sides. Iran flatly refused to halt uranium enrichment or move its fuel offshore, which was a core US demand. Moreover, Washington pushed for a broader agreement that includes Iran’s ballistic missile programme and its support for regional proxies, while Iran maintained that talks should only focus on the nuclear issue. A second round of high-level nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran was scheduled, but the military build-up has cast a shadow over that prospect.
The Military Build-Up
The deployment of the Ford—the world’s largest aircraft carrier—is a huge increase in US air, naval, and missile capabilities in the region, allowing for potentially weeks-long military operations if ordered. The combined fleets bring over 150 advanced aircraft, hundreds of Tomahawk missiles, and sophisticated Aegis-equipped missile defences to the region.
Operating from the sea allows the US to maintain strike capabilities without needing permission to use the airspace or territory of regional allies like the UAE, which has publicly restricted such use. The presence of two carriers enables the US to conduct sustained, multi-week military campaigns if necessary, rather than isolated strikes.
This deployment also signals a rapid response capability and is designed to deter Iran and its regional proxies from attacking US forces or commercial shipping, especially after recent incidents, including the shooting down of an Iranian drone by US forces.
Iran’s Response
The Iranian Navy has announced that it is tracking every move of the US “armada” as part of its deterrence posture. Senior Iranian officials warned that any US attack would lead to a “major war” and an all-out regional conflict. High-ranking military figures, including IRGC leadership, stated that their forces remain “on the trigger” and are prepared to respond with “vengeful blows” against US forces and regional allies if provoked.
State media reported increased activity by the IRGC, including the repositioning of missile units and air defence systems to reduce vulnerability to potential strikes. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi insisted that Iran “won’t be scared” by the naval presence, framing the deployment as a failed attempt at coercive diplomacy. Iranian defence officials reiterated that all US bases in the region are within reach of their missile arsenal and would be targeted in the event of a strike.
In response to US pressure, Iran mobilised large crowds during the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution to demonstrate domestic unity against foreign intervention. Despite these escalations, Iran has maintained it remains open to “fair and equitable” talks, provided they are conducted through territorial sovereignty.
The Rhetoric of Regime Change
The US build-up follows a decade since the 2011 Arab Spring protests in Iran and a violent crackdown by authorities. Trump’s recent comments about the fate of the “shift in power” in Tehran would be the “best thing that could happen.” Despite his comments, Trump has repeatedly said that his preference is a diplomatic agreement. He recently told Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that nuclear talks with Tehran must continue.
While Trump has used the term “regime change,” Vice President JD Vance recently stated that the US is not actively pursuing it. Similarly, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has noted that unseating the current leadership would be “far more complex” than previous efforts in other countries.
This mixed messaging reflects a deeper ambiguity in US policy. The maximum pressure campaign is real, but so is the preference for a diplomatic solution. The military build-up is real, but so is the reluctance to engage in another prolonged Middle East conflict.
The Strait of Hormuz
The increased naval presence is also heavily focused on ensuring the freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical choke point for global oil trade. This aims to prevent a spike in global energy prices, which analysts warn could exceed $150 per barrel if conflict erupts.
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important waterways. Nearly a fifth of global oil consumption passes through it. Any disruption would have immediate and severe consequences for the global economy. Both sides know this, and both use it as leverage.
A Realistic Assessment
Summing up, a realistic assessment would be that the Trump administration is focusing on exerting maximum pressure to force a nuclear deal and aiming to contain Iran rather than engaging in a total resource-draining war. A direct war could be costly, unpredictable, and potentially lock the US into another long-term Middle East engagement. Despite the preference for diplomacy, US military officials have prepared for potential sustained operations against Iran if ordered, indicating readiness for escalation.
On the other side, hardline factions in Tehran, including the IRGC and powerful clerics, have publicly dismissed the talks as a “political game,” and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei remains deeply sceptical of US intentions. A full-scale war could lead to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and trigger retaliatory strikes on US bases in the region, including in Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain.
Conclusion: High Stakes, Low Certainty
The situation remains high-stakes, with both sides maneuvering to avoid full-scale conflict while being prepared for it. On balance, it appears that both sides may eventually settle for a “temporary de-escalation,” as neither side currently may seek a full-scale regional war.
But temporary de-escalation is not a solution. The underlying issues remain: Iran’s nuclear programme, its missile development, its regional influence, and the structure of sanctions. Without addressing these, the cycle of tension, talks, and military build-up will continue.
The presence of two aircraft carriers in the region is a reminder of how close we are to conflict. The fact that talks are still scheduled is a reminder that diplomacy is not dead. Which path prevails will depend on decisions made in Washington and Tehran in the coming weeks and months.
Q&A: Unpacking the US-Iran Standoff
Q1: What is the significance of deploying two US aircraft carriers to the Middle East?
The deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford and USS Abraham Lincoln—two carrier strike groups—represents a huge increase in US air, naval, and missile capabilities. It enables sustained, multi-week military operations rather than isolated strikes. This signals a rapid response capability and is designed to deter Iran and its proxies from attacking US forces or commercial shipping. Operating from the sea allows strikes without needing permission from regional allies.
Q2: What were the outcomes of the recent US-Iran talks in Oman?
The talks were described as “positive” and “constructive” by both sides. However, fundamental differences remain. Iran refused to halt uranium enrichment or move fuel offshore—core US demands. Washington seeks a broader agreement covering Iran’s ballistic missile programme and regional proxies, while Iran insists talks focus only on the nuclear issue. A second round was scheduled but now faces uncertainty amid military escalation.
Q3: How has Iran responded to the US military build-up?
Iran has tracked the US fleet, warned that any attack would trigger a “major war” and all-out regional conflict, and repositioned missile units and air defence systems. IRGC leadership stated forces remain “on the trigger” ready to respond. Officials reiterated that all US bases in the region are within missile range. Despite this, Iran maintains openness to “fair and equitable” talks through territorial sovereignty.
Q4: What is the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz?
The Strait of Hormuz is a critical choke point for global oil trade, with nearly a fifth of global oil consumption passing through it. The US naval presence aims to ensure freedom of navigation and prevent a spike in global energy prices, which analysts warn could exceed $150 per barrel if conflict erupts. Both sides use the Strait as leverage—Iran could threaten closure, while the US works to keep it open.
Q5: What is the realistic assessment of where this standoff is headed?
The Trump administration appears focused on maximum pressure to force a nuclear deal and contain Iran, not on a resource-draining war. A direct war would be costly, unpredictable, and risk another long-term Middle East engagement. Hardliners in Tehran dismiss talks as a “political game,” and Khamenei remains sceptical. Both sides are preparing for escalation while preferring to avoid it. The most likely outcome may be temporary de-escalation rather than resolution, as neither currently seeks full-scale war.
