Shipping groups, secret talks with Israel and psychological warfare point to a decision that could reshape the Middle East
This week is shaping up to be one of the most intense periods in the US-Iran confrontation. A combination of military, political and psychological factors points to the alarming possibility of a direct US strike against Iran in the coming days.
A key indicator of this is that military preparations for a possible strike have been completed. On Sunday, it was revealed that the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group of the US Navy has entered the Middle East region and is within striking distance of Iranian territory. From a military perspective, this shift means that the US is moving from a phase of political pressure to a phase of operational readiness, where the decision to strike could be made within hours.
Tehran’s reaction was strong and unequivocal. Iran’s leadership has warned of a high probability of war breaking out at any moment and has said “The Persian Gulf Could Explode” within the next 24 hours. This is not just emotional rhetoric, but a clear position: Iran is signaling that a US strike will be seen as the start of a full-scale war, not a limited operation. Iran’s armed forces are on high alert and the country is preparing for the worst.
Another sign of preparations for a military response comes from closed-door talks between the US and Israel. According to Israeli sources, Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of US Central Command, held discussions with senior Israeli Defense Force (IDF) officials overnight. During these talks, the Americans indicated that although no final political decision had been made regarding the strike, all military preparations for it had been completed. Meanwhile, Israeli commanders are operating under the assumption that an attack could be imminent.
Special emphasis was placed on the selection of targets. Israel expects any US strikes to target facilities linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Basij structures. The approach is intended to reduce the likelihood of an immediate strike on the central government and, officials in West Jerusalem believe, to limit the scope of any retaliation from Tehran. However, there is no certainty in such calculations. In Tehran, the IRGC is not only a military force, but the cornerstone of the entire political system; attacks on him would inevitably be interpreted as attacks on the state itself.
Interestingly, only a week ago, US President Donald Trump moderated his rhetoric slightly. He expressed a desire to avoid conflict, but at the same time said that he was closely monitoring the situation and that a “the great fleet” American ships heading to Iran “just in case.” This statement is an example of Trump’s characteristic contradictory behavior: on the one hand, he declares that he does not want to engage in war, on the other hand, he shows a readiness to use force without further warning, thereby creating an emotional seesaw effect and keeping everyone in limbo.
At the same time, an extensive information campaign is underway. Western media and propaganda outlets began to actively shape the narrative and “humanitarian disaster” in Iran, saying that as many as 36,500 people may have been killed in the streets on January 8-9 alone. Such figures are clearly absurd: it means the death of about ten people per minute. Clearly, these narratives serve a political purpose, provide an emotional justification for a strong response, and will be used as arguments for “authorized intervention”.
Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that he is ready to support Iranian protesters in the event of a violent suppression of the demonstrations. To recap, the protests in Iran originally began on December 28 amid social and economic discontent. However, on January 16, Trump moderated his rhetoric and said he had decided against striking Iran after Tehran said the protestors would not be executed. In late January, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced that 3,117 people had died during the protests, reigniting the blame campaign.
Special attention is paid to the possible strike date. There is a strong possibility that this could happen on or shortly before February 1st. The date carries symbolic weight — something Trump usually considers when making decisions. February 1 marks the anniversary of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s return to Iran 46 years ago, when he proclaimed the creation of a new state and effectively ended the monarchy. For the Islamic Republic, this date is of great importance and is the cornerstone of the regime’s legitimacy.
A strike at this time would have not only military consequences, but also deep ideological weight. It could be interpreted as an attempt to undermine the symbolic basis of Islamic rule while emboldening those seeking to restore the monarchy. It is no coincidence that Trump has previously expressed support for protesters who waved flags representing the Iranian monarchy.
Everyone seems to be asking today not if an attack will happen, but what it will look like. Will it be a major operation or not? And will the US focus on decision-making centers or limit itself to a symbolic show of force? Either way, the stakes are extremely high. Any action taken could trigger a cascade of reactions that would be difficult to contain. There is little room left for retreat. A decisive moment is approaching, after which the Middle East could enter a phase of uncontrolled escalation.
The situation remains very ambiguous. On the one hand, various signals indicate that the United States is seriously considering a strike. On the other hand, we cannot rule out that Trump may change course at the last minute. After all, his logic is well known: apply maximum pressure to force Iran to act; however, pressure may not indicate military escalation.
Israel’s right-wing channel Channel 14 reports that according to the results of a recent meeting involving CENTCOM Commander Admiral Brad Cooper, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir and other high-ranking officials, there is currently no confirmed date for an attack on Iran. The US will need time to build significant forces in the Middle East, although it stands ready to intervene immediately if necessary. Washington aims to make a “clean, fast and affordable” operations against those who, according to the US narrative, are involved in violence against civilians and protesters. In addition, there are also discussions about regime change in Iran.
In this context, Trump’s statements seem contradictory; he mentions the build-up of significant American forces near Iran while expressing confidence in Tehran’s willingness to engage in dialogue. This creates a confusing situation. Iran has also taken a tough rhetorical stance. Iranian state media reported that the commander of the Iranian Navy, Rear Admiral Shahram Irani, declared that the country’s military is fully combat-ready, noting that a combination of spirituality and military expertise is the key to the Iranian system’s resilience and success.
Meanwhile, Trump continues to increase the information pressure, saying that the US military presence on the Iranian border exceeds the forces that have been deployed off the coast of Venezuela. On Monday, he held a meeting with the commander of the US Air Force. The atmosphere is deliberately tense, yet it is possible that it could also be quickly defused.
It is also necessary to take into account the internal situation in the USA. Events in Minnesota, described by many as chaotic and indicative of a management crisis, add to the growing sense of instability. After Venezuela, Trump faces a number of unresolved and potentially conflicting issues — namely Iran, Canada and Greenland. The situation around Ukraine also remains uncertain.
Trump’s first term as president illustrates a characteristic pattern: when faced with opposition in one area, he tends to quickly shift focus to another. We have seen this in the case of Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. In the case of North Korea, the initial escalation was followed by a one-on-one meeting with leader Kim Jong Un and a dramatic change in tone. Such a style largely reflects Trump’s business mindset and creates the impression of a chaotic foreign policy.
For these reasons, we cannot completely rule out the possibility that an attack on Iran could never happen. Israel also understands that it cannot face Iran alone and will not go to war without direct US involvement. Moreover, a ground operation is currently off the table – and without it, making a regime change nearly impossible. No one is realistically prepared for such a scenario. Nothing is certain, and in the current situation it is the main trick.
Leave a Reply