Policy Paper by Dr. Mohamad Kawas – Progress Center for Policies Progress
⸻
Executive Summary
• The U.S. military buildup in the Middle East represents the largest pressure campaign Washington has exerted on Iran since the establishment of the Islamic Republic.
• The nature of the U.S. deployments suggests that regime change is not the primary objective, though military strikes could trigger leadership disarray that might weaken regime cohesion.
• The United States favors a new political deal that neutralizes the nuclear threat, imposes constraints on Iran’s missile program, and curbs Tehran’s regional policies.
• The campaign is primarily American, with Israeli support, and notably lacks a U.S.-led diplomatic effort to mobilize broad international or regional backing among allies.
• U.S. diplomacy on Gaza is closely linked to arranging an Israeli posture that helps create a regional environment not hostile to potential U.S. strikes.
⸻
Introduction
Given the scale of the unprecedented U.S. military buildup in the region, Iran is positioning itself on the assumption that the likelihood of a qualitative U.S. military strike has increased, aimed at exerting additional pressure on Tehran. While official U.S. statements provide little clarity regarding the scope of such a strike or the range of its military targets, analysis has focused on how a U.S. military decision would affect the Iranian regime’s negotiating options and the resilience of its hold on power.
⸻
Militarization as Support for Protests in Iran
The U.S. escalation and military deployments cannot be separated from the recent precedent of Washington’s support for Israel’s 12-day war against Iran in June 2025, which included the participation of U.S. B-2 strategic bombers in strikes on the Isfahan, Fordow, and Natanz nuclear facilities on June 22 of that year. Any prospective new strikes must also be understood in a different context from previous ones, as they would follow bloody internal protests in Iran that Iranian and foreign sources report resulted in tens of thousands of deaths.
Time magazine reported on January 25, 2026, citing two Iranian sources, that the death toll exceeded 30,000—an account that appeared to prepare U.S. public opinion and Congress to accept an “ethical” decision to carry out punitive strikes, which President Donald Trump had threatened.
Indicators pointing to the likelihood of a military strike include an official statement by Trump on January 22, 2026, announcing the movement of a “large force” or naval “armada” toward the Gulf region. He noted that this force included an aircraft carrier, a destroyer strike group, and F-15 fighter jets, alongside reinforcements at bases such as Al Udeid in Qatar. These moves came amid close monitoring of developments inside Iran.
⸻
Trump’s Political Conditions
Trump framed the U.S. military buildup in the Middle East within a political context linking American intervention to the continued killing of Iranian protesters by the authorities, or to the resumption of certain nuclear activities. He coupled his increasingly tangible military threats—manifested in the deployments in regional waters—with the possibility of refraining from a strike should U.S.–Iranian contacts yield a change in Iran’s position on suppressing internal protests and on the negotiation terms set by Washington.
Despite Iran’s rejection of altering the framework of negotiations, various U.S. reports indicate that Washington is demanding the following:
1. A restructured nuclear agreement that prevents Iran from enriching uranium on its own territory.
2. Control over Iran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium, either by transferring it to a third country or placing it under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision within Iran.
3. An agreement restricting Iran’s ballistic missile program and preventing the production of long-range variants.
4. An end to Iran’s “destabilizing” regional policies, particularly severing ties with its allied militias and proxies.
⸻
Iran: Responding to Threats with Threats
Iranian authorities have adopted an escalatory rhetoric warning of a wide-ranging response to threats emanating from Washington. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Tehran would respond “with everything it has” if attacked, stressing that the Iranian armed forces “will not hesitate” to use their full capabilities.
Authorities also unveiled billboards in Tehran warning the United States against military action and asserting that Iran’s response would differ from the “strategic restraint” it displayed in June 2025.
On January 22, 2026, IRGC Ground Forces Commander General Mohammad Pakpour warned that the “finger is on the trigger” against both the United States and Israel, threatening to strike U.S. bases in the region and Israel itself in the event of an attack.
Official Iranian discourse links the prospect of a U.S. strike to internal protests, with Pakpour describing potential attacks as complementary to what Tehran views as U.S. and Israeli efforts to stir unrest inside Iran. Counter-narratives from IRGC officials emphasize that any foreign military intervention would be met with “total war.”
⸻
Israel: Behind Washington, Not Ahead of It
Observers note that Israel—after years of pressing Washington to adopt a military option against Iran—now positions itself behind the United States rather than in front of it in advocating new strikes. While threats are emanating forcefully from Washington, Israel is aligning with the U.S. approach and presenting itself as a supportive and complementary partner to an American operation.
Reports indicate that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was among the actors—alongside Turkey and Saudi Arabia—whose pressure contributed to Trump’s decision to refrain from executing a strike planned for the first week of January 2026.
Analyses suggest that Israel supports U.S. pressure on Iran while preferring that Washington lead any major military action, viewing this as “better” for regional security. Nevertheless, on January 26, 2026, Israeli Northern Command chief Rafi Milo stated that the Israeli military is preparing on all fronts for the possibility that a U.S. strike on Iran could trigger retaliatory action against Israel.
He noted: “We see the force buildup the Americans are carrying out, whether in the Gulf or across the Middle East, amid rising regional tensions. We do not know where matters are headed.” He added that the military is monitoring whether Hezbollah would join a broader war if the United States strikes Iran, affirming Israel’s determination to respond forcefully with full freedom of action in Syria.
Reports also link the Iran and Gaza files through U.S. efforts to advance the Gaza ceasefire plan, which Washington has declared has entered its second phase. Although no official statements confirm a direct linkage, observers suspect that discussions by U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner with Netanyahu since January 24, 2026—covering Gaza arrangements including opening the Rafah crossing with Egypt—are intended to extract Israeli flexibility that would help create a regional environment not hostile to potential military action against Iran.
⸻
The U.S. Strike: Objectives and Purposes
The United States does not claim to be planning regime change, despite Trump’s hints about the “need for leadership change in Iran.” The nature of the military buildup—primarily naval and aerial—does not resemble the ground-based models used to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan (1991) or Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq (2003). Observers also currently rule out the aerial campaign models used to topple Slobodan Milošević in Serbia (1999) or Muammar Gaddafi in Libya (2011).
Nevertheless, analysts expect several defining characteristics and objectives of a potential new U.S. strike against Iran:
1. It is likely to be broader than the June 2025 strikes, though still limited in scope.
2. Focus on remaining nuclear facilities, ballistic missile production sites, and IRGC bases.
3. Targeting of oil or economic infrastructure to increase pressure.
4. Core objectives include preventing Iran from restoring nuclear capabilities, reducing its ability to threaten Gulf shipping or support proxies, and possibly weakening the regime internally amid protests.
5. U.S. capabilities include overwhelming air and naval superiority, enabling precise strikes using cruise missiles, fighter jets, and drones.
6. Experts question whether such strikes could compel Iran to accept U.S. negotiating terms or decisively destroy its nuclear and missile programs.
7. Trump factors in the November 2026 midterm elections, influencing the scale, duration, and limits of any military campaign and the political dividends he might seek.
⸻
Conclusions and Findings
• The United States is likely to conduct wide but limited military strikes against Iran that stop short of posing an existential threat to the regime.
• The U.S. military buildup in the Middle East reflects preparations to fulfill the president’s pledge to intervene militarily if Iranian authorities continue killing protesters.
• U.S. media reports citing Iranian sources on more than 30,000 deaths in protests suggest preparation of American public opinion to accept punitive strikes against Tehran.
• The strikes aim to influence Iranian decision-making toward accepting U.S. negotiating conditions on nuclear and ballistic missile programs and regional policies.
• Israel has assumed a secondary position behind the United States at this stage, while declaring readiness for multi-front retaliation.
• Militarily, the United States is limiting coordination to Israel without launching a diplomatic campaign to enlist broader regional or international participation.
• U.S. diplomatic engagement with Israel regarding the second phase of the Gaza plan is also intended to secure Israeli flexibility that facilitates a non-hostile regional environment for potential U.S. strikes.
• Experts doubt that such strikes would force Iran to comply with U.S. negotiating terms or succeed in dismantling its nuclear and missile programs at the expected level.
• Midterm election considerations significantly affect the scale, duration, objectives, and political returns of any military campaign for Trump and his party.
