An unprecedented deployment
The United States has concentrated between 30 and 40 percent of its operational naval fleet in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, in a maneuver reminiscent of the preparations prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The scale of the deployment is not symbolic. It involves the mobilization of two aircraft carrier strike groups — the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Gerald R. Ford — each accompanied by destroyers, cruisers and submarines capable of sustaining a prolonged air and missile campaign.
An aircraft carrier strike group is not simply a flagship with aircraft. It is an integrated combat structure that includes escorts equipped with missile defense systems, nuclear-powered attack submarines and an embarked air wing composed of fighter jets, electronic warfare aircraft and airborne early warning platforms. Each carrier can launch dozens of combat missions per day and sustain continuous operations for weeks.
Among the deployed vessels are Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and cruisers equipped with the Aegis combat system. Aegis is an integrated radar and missile architecture designed to detect and destroy aircraft, ballistic missiles and naval targets. These ships carry Tomahawk cruise missiles, long-range projectiles capable of striking land targets at distances exceeding 1,500 kilometers, historically used in the initial phases of air campaigns to neutralize radars, bases and command centers.
Virginia-class attack submarines, nuclear-powered and highly stealth-capable, complement the force. These submarines can launch cruise missiles and conduct intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions in hostile waters.
The combined power ecosystem
The naval deployment is accompanied by an air and ground reconfiguration under the command of the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), responsible for operations in the Middle East and Central Asia.
More than 150 combat aircraft have been relocated to bases such as Al Udeid in Qatar, Al Dhafra in the United Arab Emirates and Prince Sultan in Saudi Arabia. Among them are the F-35 Lightning II, a fifth-generation stealth fighter with advanced sensor fusion; the F-22 Raptor, specialized in air superiority; and the F-15E Strike Eagle, optimized for long-range precision strikes.
These aircraft are supported by KC-135 and KC-46 tanker planes that enable aerial refueling, extending operational range and sustaining what military doctrine describes as an “air bridge.” This bridge has transported Patriot PAC-3 batteries and THAAD systems designed to intercept ballistic missiles at different phases of their trajectory. The Patriot PAC-3 is oriented toward short- and medium-range interception, while THAAD operates at higher altitude and longer range.
In offensive terms, JDAM guided bombs have been deployed, converting conventional bombs into precision-guided munitions through GPS systems, along with JASSM-ER cruise missiles, air-launched weapons capable of penetrating advanced air defenses at extended distances.
The combination of these capabilities would allow the United States to conduct hundreds of daily air sorties and execute an initial campaign aimed at suppressing Iranian air defenses such as the Russian-origin S-300 systems or the domestically developed Bavar-373.
Strategic context: pressure, hegemony and military economy
The current deployment unfolds within a context of accumulated tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program, economic sanctions and a series of incidents attributed to sabotage. Washington has tightened sanctions against Iranian oil export networks and maintains that the nuclear program constitutes a strategic threat. Iran, for its part, has reiterated that its program is civilian in nature and has participated in negotiation rounds under international supervision.
At this stage, the political dimension cannot be ignored. Iran is a sovereign state, with a political system that may be uncomfortable or controversial from various perspectives, but which operates within the formal framework of international law. For years, the country has been subjected to inspections, technical conditions and oversight requirements by competent international bodies. At various stages of negotiation, it has complied with enrichment limits and verification mechanisms, even under a severe sanctions regime.
Meanwhile, the United States maintains the highest military budget on the planet. The industrial, financial and political structure that sustains this apparatus does not function in a vacuum. A defense architecture of this scale requires constant threats, permanent crises or confrontation scenarios that legitimize its expansion.
The region and the international fracture
The escalation does not enjoy homogeneous support. Oman and Qatar have promoted active diplomatic channels. Turkey has defended the need to avoid a war that would set the Gulf ablaze. China and Russia have questioned the strategy of maximum pressure and have deepened economic ties with Tehran. Even within Europe, divisions persist regarding the advisability of direct confrontation.
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, although cooperating militarily with Washington, have initiated de-escalation processes with Iran in recent years to stabilize the region and protect their own development projects.
The idea of an international consensus for war does not hold. What exists instead is a geopolitical fracture regarding the legitimacy of an intervention.
Deterrence or diplomatic simulation?
The deployment is presented as a tool of deterrence, a mechanism to force concessions without firing a shot. However, recent experience — including the so-called twelve-day war — shows that diplomacy, in certain contexts, operates as a parallel stage while real decisions are taken elsewhere.
When a country is engaged in negotiations, subjected to inspections and formal commitments, and nevertheless faces sabotage, open threats and massive military buildup on its borders, the question becomes unavoidable: what real value does the diplomatic table hold?
At this stage, diplomacy can become a chimera, a simulation that covers decisions already taken. If war breaks out suddenly, it will not be the result of historical inevitability or an uncontrollable accident. It will be the consequence of a political choice.
A war against Iran in this context would be entirely avoidable. If, despite open channels and commitments undertaken under international law, the military path is chosen, responsibility cannot be diluted into abstractions. The destruction, civilian casualties, regional destabilization and human suffering would not be inevitable collateral effects, but the result of a conscious decision by Israel, international Zionism and the United States.
In that scenario, war would not be a fatality imposed by reality, but an option selected by those who hold military and political power. And when that option is chosen in full awareness that viable diplomatic alternatives existed, history ultimately records it for what it was: a war that did not have to happen.