U.S. Forces Massively Deploy in the Middle East: Plans for a "Weeks-Long Operation" Targeting Iran and Risks of Regional Conflict

On February 14, 2026, two U.S. officials disclosed to Reuters that the U.S. military is planning a military operation against Iran that could last for several weeks. This plan was formulated against the backdrop of President Donald Trump considering ordering an attack, indicating that the two countries may experience a more severe conflict than before. Currently, the U.S. Navy's nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford is heading toward the Middle East, preparing to join the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group. This is part of the U.S. military's recent deployment of thousands of additional troops, fighter jets, missile destroyers, and surveillance equipment to the region. Although U.S. and Iranian diplomats held talks in Oman last week in an attempt to restart dialogue on Iran's nuclear program, the military buildup makes diplomatic efforts appear fragile.

The scale of military deployment and strategic intent

The recent US military deployment exceeds the scope of routine deterrence. The Pentagon confirmed the decision to deploy additional aircraft carriers on February 13. The USS Gerald R. Ford, the newest and largest aircraft carrier in the United States and globally, was previously active in the Caribbean Sea and participated in military operations in Venezuela earlier this year. It will join the already deployed USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, several Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers, fighter squadrons including F-35s, and reconnaissance platforms such as the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye early warning aircraft. A standard carrier strike group typically consists of one aircraft carrier, one to two guided-missile cruisers, two to three guided-missile destroyers, one attack nuclear submarine, and a carrier air wing. The assembly of two strike groups signifies that the US military has concentrated over 130 carrier-based aircraft, hundreds of Tomahawk cruise missiles, and tens of thousands of military personnel in the region.

An anonymous official stated that this operational plan differs from the Midnight Hammer operation executed in June last year. That operation was a one-time precision strike carried out by B-2 Spirit stealth bombers launched from the continental United States, targeting only Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran subsequently conducted limited retaliation against Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. In contrast, the currently planned operation, which would last for several weeks, may expand its scope to include Iranian state institutions and security facilities, rather than being limited to nuclear sites. This implies that the operation could involve multiple rounds of airstrikes, aiming to systematically weaken Iran's military command system, key nodes of the Revolutionary Guards, and missile launch capabilities. During a speech to U.S. troops at Fort Bragg in North Carolina on February 13, Trump blamed Iran for the negotiation deadlock, saying, "Sometimes you have to make them afraid, that's the real way to solve the problem." When asked what remains of Iran's nuclear facilities to strike, he replied, "Dust," and added, "If we act, that would be just the smallest part of the mission. We would probably clean up everything that's left."

Iran's retaliatory capabilities and the fuse of regional conflicts.

Any military action targeting Iranian territory would immediately trigger retaliation from Tehran, which is also anticipated in U.S. military planning. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran possesses one of the largest missile arsenals in the Middle East, including the Shahab and Sejjil series of ballistic missiles with ranges covering the entire Middle East and even parts of Europe, as well as a large number of cruise missiles and drones. The commander of the Revolutionary Guard's Aerospace Force, Amirali Hajizadeh, has repeatedly warned that Iran's missiles can target any U.S. bases in the region. The U.S. military presence in the Middle East is extensive, with significant bases in Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Turkey. These bases are located at distances ranging from several hundred to over a thousand kilometers from the Iranian border, all within the range of Iran's short- and medium-range missiles.

Qatar's Al Udeid Air Base, the UAE's Al Dhafra Air Base, and Bahrain's Fifth Fleet headquarters could all become high-value targets for Iran's first round of retaliation. Analysts point out that unlike Iran's 2020 attack on Iraq's Al Asad Air Base (which did not result in U.S. military casualties) in retaliation for Soleimani's death, if it is in response to ongoing U.S. airstrikes, Iran's retaliatory actions would be far more intense and determined. The greater risk lies in the potential spread of the conflict. Iran's supported regional armed networks—including Lebanon's Hezbollah, Iraq's Shiite militias, and Yemen's Houthi forces—would almost certainly be mobilized to attack U.S. and Israeli targets. This could lead to multiple fronts opening simultaneously, drawing Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and even Red Sea shipping into the conflict. After meeting with Trump in Washington on February 11, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu emphasized that any agreement with Iran must include elements crucial to Israel, highlighting Israel's close involvement in the crisis and its potential for intervention.

Diplomatic Channels and the Dilemma of "Using Pressure to Promote Talks"

Military buildup and diplomatic efforts are proceeding simultaneously, yet their underlying logics are contradictory. The talks between U.S. and Iranian representatives in Oman focus on reviving negotiations within the framework of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, but the positions of the two sides remain far apart. Washington insists that any new negotiations must cover Iran’s ballistic missile program, its support for regional proxy forces, and its domestic human rights situation. Tehran has made clear that it is willing to discuss limits on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief but refuses to include missile issues in the talks. This fundamental divide makes it difficult to advance the diplomatic process.

The Trump administration's strategy clearly carries the tone of using pressure to promote negotiations, meaning it forces opponents back to the negotiating table and compels them to accept harsher terms through extreme military pressure. However, this strategy poses high risks for Iran. Iran's political system has a strong tradition of anti-Americanism and resistance. When faced with external military threats, compromise is often viewed as weakness domestically, which may instead strengthen the stance of hardliners. On February 12, Trump stated at the White House that options other than diplomatic solutions would be very painful, very painful, but he also emphasized that all options are on the table. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly responded that the president listens to various perspectives but ultimately makes decisions based on the country and national security interests. This ambiguous stance preserves room for negotiation while maintaining deterrence on the brink of war, but the possibility of accidental escalation also increases.

The Middle East Chessboard in the Global Strategic Landscape

The fact that the US military is preparing for a war that could last for weeks has itself changed the perception of the balance of power in the Middle East. It showed global allies and adversaries that the United States remains willing to invest huge military resources in the region to achieve its strategic goals. But this also exposes the inherent contradiction of the U.S. Middle East policy: against the background of a strategic focus leaning towards the Indo-Pacific, a medium-scale conflict with Iran will severely consume its military, diplomatic and economic resources.

From the perspective of the global energy market, the stability of the Strait of Hormuz—a critical chokepoint for approximately one-third of the world's seaborne oil—will face direct threats. Iran has repeatedly threatened to block the strait in the event of conflict. Even a partial blockade could lead to a surge in international oil prices, impacting an already fragile global economy. For Russia and China, the United States' renewed deep involvement in the Middle East may present strategic opportunities, but it also requires managing the risks of regional instability spilling over. European countries, meanwhile, are concerned about potential new waves of refugees and security threats.

The ultimate direction of this crisis depends on how Washington and Tehran assess the costs at the edge of war. The mere existence of military planning can either serve as leverage to drive a diplomatic breakthrough or become a trap dragging both sides into an unintended conflict. When two carrier strike groups complete their deployment in the Persian Gulf, both parties at the negotiating table can hear the ticking of the clock. Historical experience shows that large-scale displays of force sometimes bring peace, while at other times they directly become the prelude to war. This time, the answer remains unknown.