U.S. Military Plans Against Iran: From Targeted Strikes to the Brink of Regime Change

In late February 2026, tensions in the Persian Gulf continue to escalate. U.S. President Trump stated to reporters during a White House breakfast meeting that he is considering a limited military strike against Iran. Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy has deployed the dual-carrier strike groups of the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald R. Ford to the Arabian Sea. According to disclosures, the Pentagon's operational plans include targeted elimination options against Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei and his son, and may even extend to promoting regime change in Tehran. This crisis, the most severe since the breakdown of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, is pushing the Middle East to the brink of a full-scale conflict that could trigger dramatic shifts in the regional landscape.

Military Deployment and Combat Plans

Photos released by U.S. Central Command on February 6 show the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group operating in the Arabian Sea, accompanied by two military supply ships and two Coast Guard vessels, with fighter jets from Carrier Air Wing 9 conducting flight training. This force is not operating in isolation. According to naval deployment information, the USS Gerald R. Ford is heading toward the region, along with multiple missile destroyers—the USS Frank E. Petersen, USS Spruance, USS Mitscher, and USS McFaul—as well as the littoral combat ships USS Santa Barbara and USS Canberra. This marks the largest U.S. naval force buildup in the region since the assassination of Soleimani in 2020.

Reuters, citing two U.S. government officials, reported that military plans have reached a fairly advanced stage. If Trump issues the order, the range of options extends from targeted strikes against Iran's leadership to forcibly pushing for a regime change in Tehran. One plan drafted by the Pentagon explicitly lists Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his son Mojtaba as potential targets. An official noted that this line of thinking partly stems from an assessment of the 12-day Israel-Iran conflict last year. At that time, the Israeli military claimed to have killed at least 20 senior commanders, including Chief of Staff Mohammad Bagheri. The U.S. side believes this demonstrates the effectiveness of targeting the command chain of Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

The operational concept is not limited to decapitation strikes. Another official disclosed to Axios that the plan includes weeks-long airstrikes targeting Iran's nuclear facilities and security infrastructure. The target list may encompass known nuclear sites such as Natanz and Fordow, as well as missile bases and command-and-control nodes belonging to the Revolutionary Guards. B-1B strategic bomber units at the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean have been integrated into the operational order of battle; this base has historically served as a hub for U.S. long-range strikes during multiple regional conflicts.

Diplomatic Deadlock and Ultimatum.

The strengthening of military options is directly related to the stagnation of the diplomatic track. On February 21, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, in an interview with the MSNBC Morning Joe program, denied that the United States had made a zero-enrichment demand and refuted claims that Iran had proposed a temporary freeze plan. He insisted that the core of the negotiations is to ensure Iran's nuclear program is and will remain peaceful, and stated that Tehran is willing to take confidence-building measures in exchange for sanctions relief. The Director General of the UN nuclear watchdog, Rafael Grossi, has intervened, proposing technical steps including enhanced verification and addressing the stockpile of highly enriched uranium, some of which is reportedly stored in facilities previously bombed by the U.S. and Israel.

However, Washington's stance is entirely different. A senior U.S. official told Axios: President Trump is prepared to accept a substantial deal that he can sell domestically in politics. If the Iranians want to avoid being attacked, they should give us an offer we cannot refuse. The official's tone carried an ultimatum: The Iranians have repeatedly missed windows of opportunity. If they continue to play games, our patience will not last much longer.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio's remarks further reveal the underlying logic of the U.S. mindset. He publicly warned that a power transition in Tehran would be more complex than the failed U.S. attempt to overthrow Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. Trump himself later echoed this view, stating that a regime change in Iran would be the best thing for the region. These statements elevate diplomatic negotiations from the mere issue of nuclear proliferation to the level of subverting Iran's current political system, significantly narrowing the room for compromise. The guiding principles that Araghchi claimed both sides had agreed upon are still seen in Washington as having major differences.

Regional Response and Global Energy Risks

The escalation of tensions is altering the security assessments of regional countries. Governments of several neighboring nations of Iran and its ally Israel are believed to have concluded that the likelihood of conflict is currently greater than the possibility of a breakthrough in negotiations. Israel is reportedly preparing for the potential of joint operations with Washington. Such coordination is not unfounded, as last year's Israeli strikes on Iranian targets have established a tactical model that can be referenced.

The real risk lies in the global shockwaves that could be triggered by an escalation of the conflict, with the Strait of Hormuz at its core. According to data from consultancy Kpler, in 2025, an average of over 14 million barrels of crude oil and condensate pass through this narrow waterway daily, accounting for one-third of global seaborne oil exports. Approximately three-quarters of this oil flows to China, India, Japan, and South Korea. Any disruption to navigation through the strait—whether from naval mines laid by Iran's Revolutionary Guard Navy, harassment by fast boats, or a blockade by U.S. forces—would immediately impact global supply chains.

The crude oil market has already responded. Within a week of Trump's remarks considering military strikes, oil prices have accumulated an increase of over 5%. In late February, the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil fluctuated around $66 per barrel, while Brent crude approached $72 per barrel. Traders are pricing in the risk of potential supply disruptions. An energy analyst based in Singapore pointed out that the market has not yet fully priced in the premium for a prolonged conflict, as most still believe both sides will back down at the last moment. However, if the carrier-based aircraft from the USS Lincoln and USS Ford begin to take off, a single-day surge of $10–15 in benchmark oil prices would be highly likely.

Strategic Miscalculation and Conflict Risk

The danger of the current crisis lies in the potential for multiple miscalculations. The U.S. strategy appears to be built on deterrent diplomacy: by demonstrating extreme military options (such as assassinating top leaders), it aims to force Iran into making fundamental concessions on nuclear issues. However, Tehran's decision-making logic may be entirely different. For a country that bases its regime's legitimacy on anti-Americanism and possesses a complex network of regional proxies (from Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Houthis in Yemen), external military threats are more likely to trigger a firm counterattack rather than submission.

The 2025 confrontation between Israel and Iran provides a reference. That conflict began with the assassination of nuclear scientists, rapidly escalated into cross-border missile and drone exchanges, and was barely halted under international mediation. If the United States were to intervene directly, the scale of the conflict would expand exponentially. The Aerospace Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps possesses thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles, capable of striking any U.S. military base in the Middle East; its asymmetric warfare capabilities in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz are sufficient to disrupt global shipping in the short term.

Deeper uncertainty stems from Washington itself. President Trump's statement about making a decision within 10 to 15 days, combined with his consistent style of keeping all options open, injects significant unpredictability into the decision-making process. An advisor told Axios: Trump could decide to launch an attack at any moment. This style of making decisions on the fly may have been effective in dealing with issues like North Korea, but when facing a regional power with considerable retaliatory capabilities—whose conflict consequences would ripple globally—military analysts widely regard the risks as disproportionately high.

The water temperature in the Persian Gulf is rising, while the diplomatic channels seem to be running low on coolant. When military plans detail the names of specific individuals, when the range of carrier-based aircraft covers major nuclear facilities, and when the public statements of leaders list regime change as a desirable option, war is no longer an abstract geopolitical exercise but a real risk whose probability must be calculated daily. Historical experience shows that on both sides of the Strait of Hormuz, miscalculations often occur at the moment when people believe they are least likely to miscalculate.