David Pratt : Is Donald Trump set to embroil the US in a major war ?

thenational.scot · Feb 22, 2026 · Collected from GDELT

Full Article

ONLY Donald Trump could make a threat to attack Iran sound like a line from his former television reality show series, The Apprentice. Iran’s leaders must reach a deal with the US on curbing its nuclear programme within a “maximum” of 15 days or “bad things will happen”, warned Trump last week. So far those “bad things” have yet to happen, but the sense of menace in the region grows by the hour in tandem with the massive US military buildup which, say analysts, is on a par with the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Acutely aware of the rising tensions and threat of an imminent US strike, Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday Tehran hoped to reach a “fast deal” with the US to prevent “an ­unnecessary and disastrous war”. But some observers believe that not only is there little likelihood of such a deal emerging, but that both the Trump ­administration and Iran’s government ­under supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei are already steeling ­themselves for an open military confrontation. “There is an emerging consensus in ­Tehran that Iran will not win anything at the negotiating table,” wrote Vali Nasr, the Iranian-American political ­scientist last week in a guest column for the ­Financial Times (FT). “It will instead have to accept war, ­prepare to manage it, and hope that ­conflict eventually leads to the change it is seeking – by exhausting the US to the point that it abandons the pursuit of ­future aggression and agrees to a more ­favourable nuclear deal,” Nasr added. As author of numerous studies ­including Iran’s Grand Strategy: A ­Political ­History, Nasr has long been an astute observer of the Islamic Republic and believes that Iran is “betting on war”, calculating that as the stakes grow in any protracted ­conflict, the Trump administration will be more likely to look for a way to end it. In making any such calculus, Tehran will doubtless be keeping a close eye on the US domestic political scene. On ­Tuesday, Trump will make his first official State of the Union address of his second term, speaking to an American public that is souring on his administration’s policies. It comes also in the wake of last week’s devastating rebuke by the US ­Supreme Court of Trump’s tariff policy. Having run for the presidency in 2024 with a promise to disentangle the US from foreign conflicts, Trump, since ­taking ­office, has authorised ­numerous military attacks from Yemen to Syria, ­Nigeria to Venezuela. It’s hardly surprising then that he will now face additional pressure to make the case for how a potential attack on Iran fits into his domestic political agenda. Trump will also be reckoning with the ever-present danger that such action would risk alienating his MAGA base and other supporters ahead of the US midterm elections in November. Sensing Trump’s foreign policy ­dilemma, it’s in Tehran’s interest then at the very least to play for time, or should it come to the worst and face a US military onslaught, drag it out and allow ­political disquiet and pressure against the US ­president inside America to grow. For Trump then, it’s a moment of ­reckoning, leaving him with the ­difficult choice of either ordering an attack ­anyway or beating what would be an undoubtedly humiliating retreat. “Both sides are sticking to their guns,” said Alan Eyre, a former US diplomat and Iran specialist, adding that nothing meaningful can emerge “unless the US and Iran walk back from their red lines – which I don’t think they will”. “What Trump can’t do is assemble all this military and then come back with a ‘so‑so’ deal and pull out the ­military. I think he thinks he’ll lose face,” he said. “If he attacks, it’s going to get ­ugly quickly,” Eyre was cited by Reuters news agency as saying. Some analysts say that such is the scale of the US military buildup that from a ­logistical and cost perspective it cannot be sustained indefinitely. The recent US forces amassed in the Caribbean ahead of the capture of ­Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro ­almost pales by comparison, but even this cost the US almost $3 billion from late August to early February, according to ­calculations made by the think tank, Center for a New American Security, cited by the FT. Already, the firepower the US military has assembled to confront Iran is enough to sustain a weeks-long air campaign. The world’s largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R Ford, is reportedly ­joining the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group in the Arabian Sea. An ­automatic ­identification tracking ­signal (AIS) from the USS Gerald R Ford ­carrier strike group was detected off the western coast of ­Africa last Wednesday, and this ­formidable vessel is now in the ­Mediterranean. Both aircraft carriers have thousands of troops and dozens of fighter jets on board. According to open-source intelligence analysts and military flight-tracking data, the US appears to have deployed more than 120 aircraft to the region within the past few days – the largest surge in US ­airpower in the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq war. The reported deployments include E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft, F-35 stealth strike fighters and F-22 air ­superiority jets, alongside F-15s and F-16s. Flight-tracking data shows many ­departing bases in the US and Europe, supported by cargo aircraft and aerial ­refuelling tankers, a sign of sustained operational planning rather than ­routine rotations. Trump has said he could ­potentially use the joint US-UK base at Diego ­Garcia – which is about 5200km from Tehran – to launch attacks, something London has signalled reluctance about. The ­military base in the Indian Ocean’s Chagos ­Islands is capable of hosting long-range US strategic bombers, ­including B-2 ­aircraft. “Watch any movement by B-2s. That would indicate a possible replay of ­‘Midnight Hammer’,” Mark Cancian, a senior adviser with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, told broadcaster Al Jazeera this weekend. Operation Midnight Hammer was the last time the US attacked three of Iran’s nuclear facilities as part of the Iran-Israel war in June last year. On that occasion, seven B-2 bombers flew around the world from Missouri, and a submarine launched cruise missiles from near Iran. Israel too of course was itself deeply involved in the broader 12-day war that made the operation possible, and this time again, Israeli forces are expected to take part in any new operation. For a long time now, Israel, under prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu, has sought to eliminate Iran’s nuclear programme, but this time around, some analysts believe the Israelis are pushing Trump to go further with any military onslaught also aimed at imposing strict limits on Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal or even regime change in Tehran. According to one Reuters report a few days ago, two Israeli officials were cited as saying that they believe the gaps between Washington and Tehran are ­unbridgeable and that the chances of a near‑term ­military escalation are high. Last Wednesday, speaking to The Times of Israel, former IDF Military Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin also suggested that a confrontation could be imminent. “Last week, I allowed myself to fly to the Munich Security Conference. I would think twice about flying (abroad from ­­Israel) this weekend,” Yadlin told ­Channel 12 news on Wednesday, a day after a second round of nuclear talks ­between the US and Iran were held in Geneva. Despite such warnings, the possible timing of any attack – should it happen- remains unclear. US secretary of state Marco Rubio is due to meet Netanyahu on February 28 to discuss Iran, and one senior US official said it would be mid-March before all US forces were in place. Trump’s deadline of a “maximum” of 15 days could also be a feint, say military analysts, as with the Venezuela operation, where talks were reportedly still taking place when US forces moved to capture Maduro. But even if an attack does go ahead, huge questions remain as to what Trump actually seeks to achieve. Is this simply about Iran’s nuclear ­programme or does the US want to usher in regime change in Tehran? What might be the wider regional implications were Iran to target American military bases across the Middle East as it threatens to do? Where would it leave Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace”-led process to rebuild Gaza? As ever with US intervention in the ­region, few within Washington seem to have thought through the potential day-after scenarios which are already of ­concern to some of America’s regional allies, especially the Gulf states. Regime change especially is fraught with dangers and uncertainties. Even Trump’s current regime-changer-in-chief, Rubio, has acknowledged as much. Rubio, who is recognised as having led the charge to remove ­Maduro in ­Venezuela and now the ­communist ­government in Cuba, recently told ­Congress that the US would have to hope to find ­someone to work with in the ­Iranian government through a complex transition were Khamenei ousted – but just who exactly? “If Trump goes for such action – ­killing Khamenei and top commanders – the problem is, what happens next?,” was how Mohsen Sazegara, a former ­Islamic ­Republic official turned ­opposition ­activist based in the US, summed up the problem. “Iran may become a failed state,” he told The Wall Street Journal last week. Other experts agree that every option for what comes next presents its own set of challenges. “The spectrum of options is very, very narrow, if there are any at all,” said ­Aniseh Bassiri Tabrizi, an Iran expert with the Chatham House research group. If the US opts to knock out the top ­leaders in the hope that more malleable figures rise to replace them, there is no guarantee that they will be any more ­moderate than Khamenei. For example, perhaps Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) might oust the supreme leader, or a faction of guards may seize power in the name of the people; if so, they c