The deadly beauty of the East: US policy will be threatened by an attack on Iran
Recently, the United States has increased the number of military equipment at its bases in the Middle East region. Experts believe that this could be a signal for the outbreak of hostilities in Iran, but American President Donald Trump is not taking any forceful steps. Republicans are divided into two camps: some support the US leader in resolving the Iranian issue through a military invasion, while others call for a diplomatic settlement. Why the once—loyal supporters of the American leader dissuade him from reckless steps and how the domestic political situation may affect the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East - in the Izvestia article.
The point of reference
The United States has significantly increased the number of military aircraft stationed at bases in Jordan and Saudi Arabia. This was reported by the British newspaper Financial Times (FT) with reference to satellite images and expert assessments. It is claimed that Washington is "gathering enormous air power in the Middle East for a possible military campaign against Iran that could last several weeks."
The publication reports that researchers at Tel Aviv University saw at least 66 combat vehicles on satellite photos of the base in Jordan: 18 F-35 fighter jets and 17 multirole F-15, eight A-10 attack aircraft, as well as EA-18 electronic warfare aircraft and other aircraft. In Saudi Arabia, the number of military equipment has also increased: experts have noticed E-3 AWACS radar detection aircraft and transport aircraft.
The WSJ estimates that the United States is deploying the largest aviation group to the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. According to some reports, from 40 to 50% of the country's total air force is aimed at Tehran and is waiting for the go-ahead from American President Donald Trump.
If the United States does decide to launch a major strike against Iran, one of its main goals will be to lead the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), an elite unit of the republic's armed forces. CNN clarified that this scenario is being considered by the Trump administration in case diplomacy or targeted attacks do not force Tehran to make a deal with Washington.
Back in January, the White House announced a serious study of the possibility of using force against Iran. Then Washington expressed the hope that Tehran would agree to the proposed terms and sign a "fair and equitable" agreement, which implies the complete abandonment of nuclear weapons. At the same time, the authorities of the Islamic Republic have repeatedly stressed their lack of intention to create an atomic bomb.
On February 17, the second round of negotiations between the United States and Iran on the nuclear program was held in Geneva with the assistance of Oman. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic announced the achievement of mutual understanding in several areas that may be included in the draft of a future agreement. Washington noted that the dialogue was successful, but Tehran is not yet ready to accept some of the positions voiced by the American side.
To be or not to be
General Dan Kane, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces (JCS), believes that armed actions against Tehran could lead to negative consequences for Washington, the Axios portal reported, citing sources.
According to some reports, Kaine warned Trump that "the campaign against Iran carries significant risks and could turn into a protracted conflict." Analysts of the publication believe that the general's position can be particularly influential: he is the chief military adviser to the American president and enjoys great respect from him. The portal's sources claim that Kane supported the US military operation in Venezuela, but "he is very cautious about discussing Iran." He assumes that in the event of an attack on Tehran, the losses on the part of the American armed forces will be greater than among the Iranian military.
Donald Trump has already denied that the JCS chairman tried to dissuade him from striking Tehran. "Kane, like all of us, would like to avoid war, but if a decision is made to take action against Iran on a military level, he believes it will be easy to win," the 47th president of the United States wrote on Truth Social.
At the same time, the American leader has not yet attempted an armed attack on the Islamic Republic, although some analysts predicted strikes as early as the end of January.
General Kane is not the only one expressing concern about a possible attack on Iran. According to Axios, politicians, journalists and opinion leaders are in favor of a diplomatic solution to the conflict. Among them are Trump's top special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Vice President of the United States Jay Dee Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, American conservative journalist Tucker Carlson and others. Even US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has taken a tough stance on Iran, is now "sitting back." It is possible that the negative opinion partly influences the views of Trump himself.
For example, on February 23, in an interview with TASS, Andrew Napolitano, an analyst, blogger and author of the Judging Freedom podcast, said that Carlson was trying to convince Trump not to enter into an armed conflict with Iran. "I am aware that my friend and former colleague (at) Fox (News) Tucker Carlson is with the president this afternoon, making a last—ditch attempt to dissuade him from going to war with Iran," the expert said.
However, there are still "anti-Iranian hawks" in Republican circles. Thus, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, commenting on the course of negotiations with Tehran, noted that he did not rule out a military scenario. "All options remain on the table. The decision is made by the president. We are here to ensure that an agreement is reached. I think it would be wise for Iran to conclude a good agreement," the minister said.
The narrative about the strength of the American army also comes from pro-Israel lobbyist and blogger Ben Shapiro. He claims that the "firepower" of the United States will make it possible to conduct military operations much longer than it was in June 2025, when Operation Midnight Hammer began. "Although Iran has an arsenal of ballistic missiles capable of hitting US bases in the region, the assumption that tens of thousands of Americans will die as a result of counterstrikes is false. The republic does not have such an overwhelming potential, and the United States is already strengthening its defenses in case of a possible retaliatory strike," the blogger explained.
The topic of the invasion of Iran is particularly unpopular among ordinary Americans. A January Quinnipiac University poll showed that 70% of voters strongly oppose an armed conflict between the United States and Iran. Only 18% voted in favor.
The invasion will definitely not add political points to Trump, as it is likely to turn into "a multi-year epic with the destabilization of the entire region," says American political scientist Malek Dudakov.
— Everything is done "at random": suddenly you will be lucky and you will be able to change the government relatively cheaply, bring someone pro-Western, and then call it your victory. The risks are high, and the probability of a positive scenario is extremely low. This is another factor that influences Trump's position. He has not yet made a final decision on bombing Iran, although he has assembled a large group: two aircraft carrier strike groups — 7-8 destroyers with up to 300 Tomahawk missiles on board. It is unlikely that this will lead to the overthrow of the government, but it will cause serious damage to Iranian military facilities if these missiles reach them," the expert points out.
A leap into the void
According to analysts, the conflict in the Republican Party is capable of influencing escalation in the Middle East region through "mechanisms of political incentives." In particular, the isolationist wing insists on prioritizing internal tasks and preventing a new protracted war, while the other — the "hawks" and part of the pro—Israel lobby - demand a show of force in front of Iran in order to show other countries the power of the United States.
Dmitry Brije, a Middle East specialist, told Izvestia that the looming split would become an instrument of "internal party discipline." The military buildup in the region will solve two problems at once, making it possible to show the tough stance from which Trump usually enters into serious negotiations, and neutralize accusations of weakness from his own "hawks."
— The power component in this approach does not necessarily act as a signal of preparation for a major war. He creates a sense of the inevitability of the worst-case scenario in order to push Iran to an agreement on terms favorable to the United States. There is a downside here: the tougher the signal, the more likely it is that Tehran will decide to strengthen its negotiating position with responses through regional networks," the expert explained.
The United States and its Western allies worry that Iran will instruct groups it supports to attack American facilities in Europe and the Middle East if Washington decides to conduct a military operation against Tehran. This was reported by The New York Times (NYT), citing sources in the American and Western security services.
At the same time, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned that Tehran would be forced to strike at US military bases if the state attacked the republic. "If the United States attacks us, we will have every right to defend ourselves," he said in an interview with CBS.
Malek Dudakov notes that due to the great focus on the Middle East issue and the large "drawdown" on this flank of the US foreign policy track, the "collapse of the old pro-Israeli consensus" is taking place among Americans. This trend is observed among both Democratic and Republican youth.
— This phenomenon has long-term consequences, because sooner or later these young people will enter big politics. In the context of Israel, young people will be much closer to Zohran Mamdani, the current mayor of New York, or to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez than to "oldies" like Mike Huckabee, who always support Israel and criticize Iran, the expert concludes.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
