Amid renewed nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington, the United States has repositioned major naval assets in and around the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The advanced aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, the largest warship in the world, has altered its route toward the region, creating a rare configuration in which two US carrier strike groups are operating near Iranian waters.
While some media outlets frame the development as a precursor to full-scale war, closer examination suggests the deployments may be part of a broader strategy of military signaling aimed at strengthening Washington’s leverage at the negotiating table.
Technical Realities: Routine or Exception?
Under its strategic doctrine, the United States Navy consistently keeps at least six aircraft carriers in a state of readiness. Each Carrier Strike Group includes the main aircraft carrier, several guided-missile destroyers and cruisers, nuclear submarines, and logistical support ships, covering missions lasting 4 to 8 months in various regions of the world.
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) has for some time been stationed in the Arabian Sea and around the Persian Gulf, and recent satellite imagery confirms its position in the northern Arabian Sea (near Oman).
USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), which, after a prolonged mission in the Caribbean region (focused on Venezuela), was returning to base, changed course by direct order of the Pentagon; the carrier passed through the Strait of Gibraltar on February 20 and is now present in the Mediterranean Sea, moving eastward.
These deployments are part of the routine rotational program of the US fleet, but under current conditions—simultaneous with Trump’s pressure to quickly reach a nuclear agreement and his threat of “very bad things” in the event of negotiation failure—they have taken on a symbolic and aggressive tone.
The Symbolic Dimension: Psychological Pressure or Real Readiness?
US aircraft carriers, beyond being combat tools, are considered symbols of Washington’s global power. The simultaneous deployment of two carriers sends a clear message of deterrence and strengthens leverage at the negotiating table. As Trump has described these forces as an “armada” and views them as leverage to accelerate a nuclear agreement.
However, some analysts point to practical limitations:
Ford’s mission has lasted more than 240 days, and its crew is fatigued; continued deployment could temporarily reduce combat readiness.
The concentration of forces is more a display of power and diplomatic pressure than a sign of the immediate launch of offensive operations.
Iran’s Response: Defensive Readiness with Emphasis on Diplomacy
Iranian officials have adopted clear and dual positions in response to these movements:
Mohammad Reza Aref (Vice President): Our strategy is not to start a war, but if one is imposed, the enemy will not decide its end. We believe in dialogue.
Major General Mousavi (Top Military General): A battle with Iran will be a lesson for Trump
When Major General Seyed Abdolrahim Mousavi, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, warns Donald Trump that he will “enter into a lesson-teaching battle,” these words go beyond a verbal threat; they reflect a multilayered deterrence doctrine formed over recent decades based on field experience and technological advances, transforming the geography of tension from a single point into a vital global region.
Abbas Araghchi (Foreign Minister): Diplomacy does not succeed under military threat.
Araghchi also announced readiness to present a draft counterproposal in negotiations.
Major General Hatami (Army chief): We are ready to respond decisively to any mischief.
The Commander-in-Chief of Iran’s Army said that Iran is closely monitoring the enemy and is prepared to respond decisively to any mischief.
We hope the enemy does not make a new mistake, and if it does, the Air Force of the Army will certainly play a major role in responding to the aggressors, he added.
Regarding the presence of American warships in the region, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army stated, “This is not a new issue; after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, we have repeatedly witnessed the presence of American enemy ships and various units; today is also one of those days.”
“Our duty is to maintain our readiness, monitor all enemy movements, and be prepared for a decisive response—and we are.”
Brigadier General Seyyed Majid Mousavi (The Commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force): Certainly, if the enemy commits any mistake and miscalculation, it will see a response harsher than before.
Iran has simultaneously emphasized its hypersonic missile capability (such as Fattah-1), drone capacity, and the ability to sink aircraft carriers, and considers any direct attack to be full-scale war, yet it continues to prioritize legitimate defense without initiating conflict and the pursuit of the diplomatic path.
Deterrents to Full-Scale War
Analysts believe several factors prevent a slide toward widespread conflict:
Enormous economic and military costs for the United States (especially on the eve of elections and amid domestic issues).
Iran’s retaliatory capability against US bases and interests in the region.
Negative impact on the global energy market and concerns of Washington’s allies (Israel and Arab countries).
The bitter experiences of America’s recent prolonged wars.
The deployment of American warships should be viewed more as diplomatic chess pieces than as the key to igniting war. What is unfolding in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean is a test of wills, precise calculations of power, and intelligent management of tension. The United States, through a maximum display of force, seeks to shift the balance in negotiations, and Iran, by combining high defensive readiness with adherence to diplomacy, defends its rights and national security.
MNA
