GOA - As of late January 2026, the United States has engaged in a major, visible naval buildup near Iran, characterized by President Donald Trump as a "massive armada". This deployment - including the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group and multiple destroyers - follows intense tensions between Washington and Tehran.

A critical analysis suggests this is a hybrid strategy: a mix of extreme coercive pressure, mostly faking and active, detailed preparation for a limited strike whose intent is largely about optics and tactical intent. It is brinkmanship at the very core, which, for the US, is nothing but the art of using the threat of nuclear weapons to compel an adversary to bend to its will, especially when the adversary may be either similarly or equally effectively armed. If the person-on-the-street were to offer an assessment, they would compare the situation to two vehicles approaching each other head-on in the same lane of traffic.  

Cold-war style brinksmanship

Brinkmanship may be associated with early Cold War showdowns, such as the Berlin Crisis, the Cuban Missile Crisis, or other zero-sum conflicts between the nuclear superpowers. These may just end up being theatrics and muscle flexing of a virtual juvenile nature coming from the US. Trump’s desperate drive to assert his imperial status and superiority is as irrational as it is juvenile. The world is getting used to this – despite what happened in Venezuela and the illegal and unwarranted abduction of Maduro. And, even that act seems to be a coma, or slightly worse, a semi-colon. America is detached from reality, political ethics, and a desire for a humane and just world. Its pretense of superiority is nothing short of unattainable ambitions. 

Brinkmanship assumes that both states are rational actors. Applying this principle against the traditional Iranian opponent is an exercise for citizens of the world who want a peaceful world that rejects domination and affirms justice as the ground for peace.

In the instant case of Iran, brinkmanship may not be appropriate while Iran's government is in a state of transition. Based on recent analysis (2025-2026), Iran is increasingly understood not just as a conventional nation-state but as a civilisational state - a nation with deep historical roots spanning over 7,000 years that defines its identity through continuity, cultural heritage, and resistance to external hegemony. This perspective suggests that while Iran’s foreign policy can be assertive, its fundamental goal is to protect a distinct identity and political ethic that rejects foreign control over its value systems. 

Iran will reject Western-style imperial-colonial influence

Iran's foreign policy is often characterized by a rejection of Western "imperialist" or "colonialist" influence, a sentiment stemming from historical experiences like the 1953 coup. The country uses this anti-imperialist, anti-American, and anti-Israeli stance to build its identity, which is seen as a "return to self" or a return to Islamic and Persian dignity.

Iran views itself as an organic nation that has survived numerous foreign invasions, strengthening a deep-seated feeling of identity that persists beyond current political ideologies or regimes. The post-1979 political ethos, often summarized as "neither East nor West," reflects an attempt to maintain independence and a unique identity, resisting alignment with foreign powers. The Iranian state (both in its pre-1979 and post-1979 forms) has aimed to project its own cultural and, later, religious values, opposing the imposition of Western social and cultural norms, which are seen as "soft war".

While often viewed in the West as expansionist, analysts assert that Iran’s actions in the region are designed to ensure its security and prevent the overthrow of the system by external forces. Even during intense external pressure, such as the 2026 conflict with Israel, the overarching sentiment is one of defending Iranian sovereignty, rather than pursuing expansionist war. 

In essence, the "civilisational state" framework posits that Iran's foreign and domestic behaviour is driven by a long-term, deeply rooted sense of self that refuses to conform to a Western-dominated international order, prioritizing its own, often religious and historical, worldview. 

US resorts to “maximum pressure tactics”

Based on recent 2026 reports, the United States engages in and threatens military action against Iran primarily to advance a policy of "maximum pressure," aiming to alter Iranian policies rather than topple the government through a full-scale invasion. The strategy relies on calibrated, and often limited, strikes to force Iran into negotiations, particularly concerning its nuclear program, ballistic missile development, and support for resistance forces. 

The arrival of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group into the US Central Command area of responsibility, close to Iranian waters, has sharpened the sense that a broader confrontation may be taking shape. Coming amid the January protests in Iran, the deployment underscores how close Washington and Tehran may now be to a direct showdown, closer than at any point in recent years. Iranian leaders find themselves squeezed between a protest movement and a US president who has kept his intentions deliberately opaque, fuelling anxiety not only in Tehran but across an already volatile region.

The US is constructing its case by exploiting the internal crackdowns and, thus, threatening military intervention in response to the Iranian government's violent crackdown on domestic, anti-government protests, framing the threats as a response to the killing of protesters. The facts must be understood in objective truth. 

US exploits Iran’s economic distress enhancing the sanctions regime

As of early 2026, the Iranian economy is experiencing severe distress, characterized by a depreciating rial, high inflation, and a shrinking middle class, with international sanctions and withheld funds being primary drivers, often referred to as "maximum pressure" tactics. While internal structural issues are present, the re-imposition of sanctions after 2018 is widely considered the central factor in this collapse. Sanctions have severed Iranian banks from international payment systems (SWIFT), making legal trade difficult, costly, or impossible, resulting in a 45% drop in the rial against the dollar in 2025 alone. US sanctions significantly curtailed Iran's oil exports, the primary source of national revenue, leading to tens of billions of dollars in lost annual revenue. Hundreds of billions of dollars in Iranian assets are blocked in international accounts, exacerbating a persistent shortage of foreign currency. The depreciation of the rial has caused the cost of imported goods, medicine, and basic food items to skyrocket, leading to over 40% annual inflation. In poorly argued cases, many international companies avoid trading with Iran even when legally permitted, fearing US legal repercussions. 

By January 2026, the Iranian rial hit a record low, trading at approximately 1.5 million to one US dollar. The government was struggling with a widening budget deficit, which had led to the printing of more money, fuelling further inflation. In response to sanctions, Iran has attempted to develop a "resistance economy.

The sanctions have disproportionately affected the middle class, which has shrunk dramatically, while elite, government-connected entities often control the remaining, heavily sanctioned trade. While sanctions are a major driver, the economic crisis is also compounded by internal factors, including an over-reliance on oil and inefficient state-owned enterprises.

US officials, particularly under a returning Trump administration in 2026, aim to eradicate and dismantle" Iran's nuclear program through threats of force. Rather than aiming for total defeat, the goal is often described as creating a "Venezuelan model" of pressure, where the ruling system remains in place but is forced to negotiate due to crippling economic and military pressure. Trump has indicated that these threats are designed to bring Iran "to the table". The arrival of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group into the US Central Command area of responsibility, close to Iranian waters, has sharpened the sense that a broader confrontation may be taking shape.

Coming amid the most extensive and violent crackdown on protests in Iran in recent memory, the deployment underscores how close Washington and Tehran may now be to a direct showdown, closer than at any point in recent years. 

US understands that it is sheer folly to trigger full-scale war with Iran

A full-scale war is seen as a "mistake" because it would likely trigger a regional conflict, involving retaliatory strikes on US bases in the Middle East and on Israel. Iran is considered too large and well-defended for a traditional occupation or easy regime change, and past US interventions in the region have rarely been successful. Direct attacks often strengthen the establishment by enabling it to mobilize domestic support and unify the country against an external threat, which could backfire on the US. Experts argue that a mix of deterrence, negotiation, and economic pressure is more effective than war. 

The US aims to deter Iran-backed resistance groups (e.g., Houthis, Hezbollah) from attacking US forces, shipping lanes in the Red Sea, and Israeli targets. Some analysts suggest the US is using a "madman theory," where unpredictable and extreme threats are designed to intimidate the Iranian leadership into making concessions, with the hope that limited, "calibrated" strikes will suffice to avoid a full-blown, costly war. 

The primary goal of this deployment appears to be forcing Iran into coercive diplomacy, a new and more restrictive nuclear and military deal without fighting a full-scale war. 

The US is leveraging Iran's current internal situation to force concessions. The military force may be real, capable, and in place to act. However, it is designed to extract concessions through the threat of force rather than immediate invasion. This whole tactic resembles a “bluff”. 

In June 2025, the US and Israel launched a 12-day war against Iranian military sites. Many analysts suggest this current buildup could lead to similar, perhaps more intense, "surgical" strikes targeting the IRGC, missile infrastructure, or nuclear sites. A "short war" would be aimed at destroying specific assets, weakening the government’s grip, and demonstrating American resolve without a prolonged occupation.

Iran has warned of an "unprecedented" and "regret-inducing" response

Unlike 2025, Iran has warned of an "unprecedented" and "regret-inducing" response, which could turn a "short" engagement into a chaotic regional conflict. While neither side may want a full-scale war, the proximity of forces makes accidents likely. 

US officials and Western sources have indicated that the decision-making in Washington and Jerusalem may have moved past diplomacy, viewing some form of military action as almost "certain" to weaken Iran. A war would likely involve US bases and allies (Israel, Persian Gulf Arab states) being targeted, disrupting global oil supplies. 

The US is using Gunboat Diplomacy - maximizing pressure through a massive naval presence for a new, favourable deal through coercion. 

Iran's threat of a "regret-inducing" response to any strike means that a planned "optics" strike could rapidly escalate. The bottom line is that the US is actively preparing to launch strikes, but the ultimate, preferred goal of this specific, massive deployment is to coerce, rather than topple, the Iranian government. 

China factor

In the event of a war between the United States and Iran, China is unlikely to intervene directly with its own military forces but will likely provide diplomatic, economic, and technological support to Tehran. Beijing views Iran as a strategic partner to counterbalance American influence and a crucial source of energy. 

China will use its veto power on the UN Security Council to prevent punitive resolutions against Tehran, blaming the US for escalating tensions and accusing Washington of violating international law. Beijing will likely frame the conflict as a defense of "sovereignty" and "non-interference," using its Global Security Initiative (GSI) to criticize US actions and rally support from the Global South.

China will likely maintain a public call for "restraint" and "dialogue", while aiming to present itself as a more responsible global leader than the US. 

As the largest buyer of Iranian oil, China will continue to ignore US sanctions.  

China is likely to supply Iran with "dual-use" technologies, such as drone components, surveillance systems, cyber capabilities, and, according to 2025 reports, ballistic missile components. Beijing will likely share intelligence with Tehran regarding US ship movements and air force operations, as part of their deepened defense partnership and joint naval drills with Russia. China will stop short of deploying the People's Liberation Army (PLA) to fight alongside Iran, as it does not have a formal mutual defense treaty and prefers to avoid direct, costly, and high-risk confrontations with the US. 

A primary, though unstated, interest for Beijing is having the United States bogged down in a Middle Eastern war, which would drain resources and decrease US attention on the Indo-Pacific and Taiwan. While a war risks disrupting the Strait of Hormuz, China will work to ensure its own oil supplies are secured, capitalizing on its diversified energy sources. 

Russia factor

Russia supports Iran through a strategic partnership focused on countering Western influence, exchanging intelligence, and providing military technology. Key support measures include supplying weapons (such as helicopters and, potentially, advanced air defense systems), sharing intelligence to protect critical infrastructure, and offering expertise on managing internal dissent and sanctions. 

Russia provides Mi-28 attack helicopters, Yak-130 trainer aircraft, and electronic warfare/surveillance technology to Iran. Reports suggest a potential future supply of advanced air defense systems.

Moscow shares satellite data and intelligence regarding US/allied troop movements. 

Russia serves as a key trade partner. Russia and China provide diplomatic cover in the UN Security Council. Despite these ties, Russia likely will not directly intervene with troops to defend Iran, as Moscow is heavily committed to its war in Ukraine and seeks to avoid direct confrontation with the US.  The relationship is transactional; Russia values Iran as a partner in forming a multipolar world order and a counterweight to the US in the Middle East. 

In early 2026, as tensions between the United States and Iran escalated over the nuclear program, Arab countries - led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) - have adopted a firm stance of neutrality and refused to allow their territory or airspace to be used for military strikes against Tehran. This refusal highlights a significant shift in regional security dynamics, with Persian Gulf states prioritizing long-term stability and economic interests over aligning with Western-led military action. 

Saudi Arabia has explicitly informed Tehran that it will not permit the use of its land or airspace for any attack, a message reportedly conveyed to avoid being dragged into a conflict. Similar to Riyadh, the UAE has firmly rejected US requests to use its airspace, territory, or waters for action against Iran, signalling a desire to avoid retaliatory strikes on its own infrastructure.

Nations on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf, including Qatar, have urged the US to exercise restraint, warning that a war would result in economic instability and target critical energy infrastructure.

A prognosis

A realistic conclusion to a potential Iran-US conflict is likely to take the form of a short, intense, and targeted engagement of the "shock and awe" variety rather than a protracted invasion, or forced, back-channel, or emergency negotiations. The consensus among analysts suggests that a full-scale, ground-force invasion is unlikely, as both sides understand the catastrophic costs and logistical nightmares of such a scenario. 

In the worst-case scenario, there could be targeted attacks against Iranian missile sites, nuclear facilities, and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) infrastructure. This outcome is considered highly probable due to the high risks and costs involved in a war with Iran, which has a large population (90M+) and rugged terrain. 

Similar to historical precedents, a period of extreme military tension and "back-channel" talks could lead to a deal. Both sides may prefer a negotiated deal over a war with no clear end-state or potential for a long, drawn-out battle. 

Many regional allies have shown little appetite for a conflict that would unfold on their doorstep, limiting the United States’ ability to use their territory for attacks. A major risk is that limited strikes (intended to be short) escalate into a regional war due to miscalculation by either side.

Despite the potential for a "short war," Iran has indicated that a response to a US strike would be swift and decisive, ensuring the conflict is not a simple, low-stakes affair. 

The views expressed in this article are those of the writer