The United States is amassing military forces in the Middle East: The crisis in Iran nuclear negotiations under pressure tactics.

In the third week of February 2026, tensions in the Middle East suddenly escalated. The U.S. Navy's Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group is transiting through the Strait of Gibraltar toward the Persian Gulf, preparing to join the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, which arrived at the end of January. Over the past day, more than 50 F-35, F-22, and F-16 fighter jets have been urgently deployed to Jordan's Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, while over 150 military transport aircraft sorties have delivered a large quantity of weapons and equipment to the region. This marks a rare dual-carrier deployment since the end of the Cold War, coinciding with a deadlock in the second round of nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Iran in Geneva. White House spokesperson Caroline Levitt stated that Iran should reach an agreement with the United States, or else the U.S. has ample justification to take action.

The scale and timing of military deployments.

The USS Gerald R. Ford, which has shifted from the Caribbean to the Middle East, carries approximately 75 carrier-based aircraft and is escorted by three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. As the world's largest nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, its deployment cycle has been extended. Meanwhile, the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group, consisting of nine destroyers and three frigates, has been cruising in the northern Arabian Sea for over two weeks. Flight tracking data indicates that a large number of KC-135 and KC-46 aerial refueling tankers have been relocated to Bulgaria's Vrazhdebna Air Base and multiple forward positions in the Middle East, which is a typical logistical preparation sign for large-scale airstrike operations.

The Pentagon's mobilization did not begin suddenly. In mid-January, when Trump first considered new actions against Iran in response to Iran's execution of anti-government protesters, defense officials warned that the limited number of U.S. troops in the region would struggle to effectively counter potential retaliatory actions by Iran. Subsequently, the U.S. military launched its largest troop deployment since Operation Midnight Hammer. In addition to aircraft carriers, the F-35A squadron deployed to Jordan possesses stealth penetration capabilities, specifically designed to strike high-value, heavily protected targets. The B-52H strategic bombers stationed at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar have also raised their alert status.

Israel is also making simultaneous preparations. The Israeli Defense Forces General Staff has instructed troops to prepare for a possible outbreak of war within days. On February 22, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, stating that any U.S.-Iran agreement must meet the following conditions: a complete ban on uranium enrichment activities, dismantling of all related infrastructure, removal of all enriched uranium, restrictions on the ballistic missile program, and continuous verification of civilian nuclear projects. Middle East experts widely believe that these terms, which Iran is unlikely to accept, essentially outline Israel's red lines.

Negotiation deadlock and military pressure.

On February 17, the U.S.-Iran negotiations in Geneva adjourned after lasting three and a half hours. Both the U.S. representative, Jared Kushner, son-in-law of former President Trump, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi acknowledged progress in the talks, but serious differences remain. The core conflict lies in: the United States demands that Iran permanently abandon uranium enrichment capabilities and accept indefinite inspections, while Iran insists on its legitimate rights as a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Vice President J.D. Vance's statement on February 18 is quite representative: the President hopes to reach an agreement, but the red lines he has set have not been fully accepted by the Iranians. He hinted that the diplomatic approach may be reaching its natural end.

A European diplomat familiar with the negotiation situation revealed that regional countries initially believed the U.S. military pressure was aimed at forcing Tehran to make greater concessions. However, after this week's negotiations, diplomats assessed that Iran is not prepared to retreat from its core positions, including insisting on the right to uranium enrichment. The diplomat stated: "The Iranians intend to slow down the negotiation process with technical details... Trump does not have that kind of patience." This assessment aligns with the time window set by the White House: Levitt mentioned that Iran is expected to provide more details in the coming weeks, while the deadline given by Trump at the first meeting of the Washington Peace Commission on February 19 is 10 days.

The synchronization of military deployment and negotiation processes is not coincidental. Daniel Shapiro, a former senior official in the Biden administration's Department of Defense and now a researcher at the Atlantic Council, analyzes that this strategy of using pressure to promote talks carries inherent risks: when negotiations fail to yield the expected concessions, the weight of military options is artificially amplified. Shapiro points out: some regional countries may support targeted strikes as a means to pressure Iran. He is referring to officials from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, but a prolonged conflict would result in significant casualties and could draw more countries into the war, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Iran's Response and Regional Risks

Tehran's response combined military countermeasures with political displays of strength. On February 17, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy conducted live-fire exercises in the Strait of Hormuz, temporarily closing this critical chokepoint that handles 20% of global oil trade. The anti-ship missiles launched during the exercises successfully hit their intended targets. Supreme Leader Khamenei mocked on social media: The Americans keep saying they sent warships to Iran. Warships are indeed dangerous military hardware. But more dangerous than that warship are the weapons that can send it to the bottom of the sea. He also reiterated that Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy and missiles, and that no agreement should restrict its self-defense capabilities.

Iran's retaliatory capabilities should not be underestimated. Its ballistic missile arsenal includes the Shahab-3 and medium-range Sejjil missiles, which can cover all U.S. military bases in the Middle East. Last year, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Aerospace Force, revealed that Iran possesses long-range anti-ship ballistic missiles capable of striking moving maritime targets. More complex is Iran's network of resistance axis operations throughout the region: Lebanon's Hezbollah possesses over 150,000 rockets; Iraq's Shiite militias have repeatedly attacked U.S. troops stationed in Iraq; and Yemen's Houthi forces have demonstrated the ability to harass shipping in the Red Sea. These proxy forces could rapidly open multiple fronts in the event of a conflict.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has urgently called on his citizens to immediately evacuate from Iran, reminiscent of diplomatic warnings before an escalation of crisis. Regional shipping insurance costs have surged by 300% over the past week, with crude oil futures exceeding $95 per barrel. Jordan and Iraq have strengthened border controls, fearing refugee flows and armed infiltration. The U.S. State Department confirmed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio plans to visit Israel on February 28 to meet with Netanyahu, ostensibly to synchronize negotiation progress, but the itinerary does not rule out the possibility of preemptive strikes by the U.S. military—last summer, when the U.S. conducted airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, diplomatic talks with Iranian counterparts were still on the agenda.

Strategic Miscalculation and the Risk of "Limited War"

Within the decision-making circle of the Trump administration, there are differing assessments regarding the timeline. Some senators believe military action could occur within weeks, while a Trump advisor estimated to Axios that the probability of taking action soon is as high as 90%, citing the boss's impatience. This sense of urgency aligns with Trump's decision-making style: in June 2025, the White House had also set a two-week window for Trump to choose between negotiation and a strike, only to launch the Midnight Hammer operation three days later. However, that limited airstrike targeting nuclear facilities is fundamentally different from the large-scale campaign currently being planned, which is expected to last for weeks.

Former Department of Defense official and current researcher at the Washington Institute, Dana Stroul, pointed out that the current military buildup indicates the government is preparing for operations that could last longer than a single-day strike. This differs from Trump's recent military action patterns: the special operations to capture Maduro in Venezuela in January 2025, the weeks-long airstrikes against the Houthis in Yemen in the spring of 2024, and last year's surgical strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were all clearly defined in scope but limited in duration. Trump has repeatedly criticized his predecessors for dragging the United States into prolonged wars in the Middle East, yet now he may personally initiate a conflict with an unpredictable end.

Experts from the Center for a New American Security, including retired Army officer Jason Dempsey, warn: Military operations may appear quick and simple—until they are no longer so. Our operation in Venezuela was so unique and unreplicable. Even that one—I’m not sure the final outcome was ideal. There are numerous potential risks: U.S. military casualties, aircraft collisions, pilots ejecting or being captured behind enemy lines, attacks by Iranian proxy forces on global shipping and energy infrastructure, and a substantial increase in the risk of nuclear proliferation—if Iran decides to withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and openly develop nuclear weapons.

In the early hours of February 20, the Pentagon's situation map showed that the USS Ford Carrier Strike Group had entered the eastern Mediterranean Sea. The voyage from there to the Persian Gulf would take approximately five days. In his Washington office, Trump had the strike plan submitted by Central Command on his desk. At the negotiation table in Geneva, the Iranian delegation's briefcase contained revisions to the latest draft. On the waters of the Persian Gulf, an Iranian speedboat closely skimmed past the wake of an American destroyer. The clock was ticking, the fleet was moving, and the corners of the documents on the negotiation table curled slightly under the breeze of the air conditioning. That familiar sense of crisis—a mix of aviation fuel, the salty scent of seawater, and the smell of old paper—once again enveloped this ancient land.