IF you want to determine whether war will take place, don’t focus on what the potential belligerents are saying; focus, instead, on where armies and supplies are being moved to. One carrier strike group — spearheaded by the nuclear-powered USS Abraham Lincoln — is already deployed 700 kilometres off the Iranian shore. It carries a complement of 60-90 aircraft including stealth fighters, attack helicopters and a full electronic warfare suite. Another carrier strike group, led by the USS Gerald Ford will be arriving in a week or less. The most advanced US carrier in the fleet, the Ford will add 70-plus aircraft to the tally, along with its advanced radar systems. Both carriers are supported by numerous military vessels, including high-tech destroyers, meaning that about a third of US naval assets are, or will soon be, in a position to strike Iran. F-15 Strike Eagles, F-35A stealth fighters and F-22 Raptors have been deployed from bases in the UK, Spain and Germany to the Middle East with additional assets en route from the US. More importantly, the US has deployed six out of its 16 E-3 Sentry aircraft to the region. The Sentry is America’s most advanced ‘eye in the sky’ command and control platform capable of airborne surveillance and early warning, with the ability to track over 600 targets simultaneously — aircraft, drones, cruise and ballistic missiles — and effectively coordinates the entire airspace of the battle. It’s a flying super-radar and the mother of all force multipliers rolled into one and it is not deployed lightly or for PR purposes. With its inclusion, the US has deployed a quarter of its entire airpower to the Middle East, making it the largest deployment of US airpower in the region since the 2003 Iraq war. Is all this for show? Is such a massive deployment only a bargaining tool? That’s unlikely at best and delusional at worst. Nor is the build-up limited to offence; anti-missile systems are in place across the region to interdict any missile and drone attacks by Iran on Israel or US bases. Those who believe the US has no intention of attacking Iran point to the lack of boots on the ground, but that calculation is based on the flawed premise that the US has any intention of occupying Iran. It does not; this would run contrary to the Trumpian way of war: short and sharp conflicts that can be sold as a victory for the president while also showcasing America’s unparalleled military might. It is sufficient for the US to simply bomb away all of Iran’s offensive and defensive capabilities, degrade its command and control, and attempt to isolate, incapacitate or decapitate Iran’s military and political leadership. In that calculus it would open up the way, as the extremist evangelical US Senator Lindsey Graham said “for the Iranian people to stage their own regime change”. With the weakening of central authority, one should expect Kurdish militants and separatists in Sistan-Baluchestan to step up their atta­cks, with the Mujahideen-i-Khalq staging guest appearances. All this will undoubtedly receive not just CIA support but also Mossad’s, which we have seen has deep infiltration in Iran. A beaten, broken and balkanised Iran, along the lines of Libya, Sudan, Iraq and Syria, would suit Israel perfectly; it’s what they want for the entire Middle East, as per the Yinon Plan of the 1980s. The US has deployed a quarter of its airpower to the Mideast As for the US, only the naïve would believe that there is a difference between their aims and those of Israel, at least when it comes to Iran, and then there are domestic politics to consider; given the fallout of the Epstein files , with even some Republican politicians calling out President Donald Trump. Would it be hard to imagine that he would start a war as a distraction? Didn’t Bill Clinton bomb Afgh­anistan and Sudan just three days after testifying to his relationship with Monica Lewinsky? But negotiations are still on between Iran and the US and, yes, there is a non-zero possibility they may succeed. What exactly is on the table? What are the face-saving off-ramps? For Iran to give up its enriched uranium is political and strategic suicide; anything less would be unacceptable to America. And then there is the big picture. China buys up to 80 per cent of Iran’s oil – some 1.38 million barrels a day — amounting to 14pc of China’s seaborne crude oil imports. Taking that off the table, or even disrupting it, amounts to economic warfare against China and can be seen as a prelude to containment, much like Venezuela before it. Because if you actually believe the US is ‘managing’ its decline and is happy to allow China its sphere of influence, then you’re wrong. The US plans to be the dominant global power for the foreseeable future and is acting accordingly. In that pursuit, chaos in Iran is indeed a desirable outcome. The writer is a journalist. X: @zarrarkhuhro Published in Dawn, February 21st, 2026