Retired General : US military buildup aims to pressure Iran as nuclear talks narrow

fox56.com · Feb 20, 2026 · Collected from GDELT

Full Article

WASHINGTON (TNND) — As nuclear negotiations with Iran continue, the United States has positioned one of its largest military deployments in the Middle East in decades, a move retired U.S. Air Force Brigadier General John Teichert says is designed to give the president maximum leverage and options.Speaking in a morning interview with anchor Jan Jeffcoat, Teichert said the deployment of multiple U.S. carrier strike groups, alongside Tehran’s recent live-fire missile drills in the Strait of Hormuz, reflects a rapidly narrowing diplomatic window.“I think the president is assembling the right set of capabilities, both offensively and defensively, so that he has options,” Teichert said. “The first option would be to use that armada to force Iran to make a deal.”However, he warned that if negotiations fail, military action remains a possibility.“I don’t think the president has made a decision,” Teichert said. “But that window of negotiations is closing, and I think Iran would be wise to make a deal. Otherwise, they’re going to face the full force of the United States military.DIPLOMACY FIRST - BUT WITH CONDITIONSWhile emphasizing that “nobody wants to go to war,” Teichert expressed skepticism about Tehran’s negotiating posture, arguing that past behavior raises concerns about good-faith engagement.“Iran has never negotiated in good faith,” he said. “Talk is cheap, especially coming from them.”Any agreement, he argued, must include two key components: robust verification measures and irreversible steps to dismantle critical elements of Iran’s nuclear, ballistic missile and proxy networks — all before sanctions relief is granted.“We need verification, and we need irreversible steps before sanctions relief,” Teichert said. “So they can’t just say they’re doing something, get the benefit of a deal, and then not do it.”WHAT WOULD CONFLICT LOOK LIKE?When asked what a potential armed conflict might entail, Teichert said any military campaign must begin with clearly defined objectives — whether limited to Iran’s nuclear program or expanded to include missiles, proxy forces or broader regime targets.“You always start with objectives,” he explained. “Then you can build a campaign with the right assets, the right sustainability and the right risk woven in.”Teichert said he does not envision U.S. boots on the ground but acknowledged the possibility of a sustained air campaign against a range of targets inside Iran, potentially including regime assets.“I don’t see boots on the ground,” he said. “But I could see, up to the high end of conflict, a large sustained air campaign.”ASSESSING IRAN'S NUCLEAR CAPABILITYDespite reports of renewed activity at certain nuclear sites, Teichert pointed to analysis from the Institute for Science and International Security, which he described as a trusted and nonpartisan source. According to the institute, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure was effectively destroyed during “Operation Midnight Hammer,” leaving no viable short-term path to a nuclear weapon.“The centrifuges were destroyed. The enriched uranium was largely destroyed. The know-how, the scientists, were likely killed or destroyed,” Teichert said. “All of the parts of the chain of capability were destroyed such that there was no viable short-term path.”He cautioned viewers not to interpret visible surface-level activity at damaged sites as proof of rapid recovery.“Just because we see some superficial activity on top of these sites doesn’t mean they’re able to recover enriched uranium underneath,” he said.Still, Teichert acknowledged that definitive assessments depend on classified intelligence available to the president.THE ISRAEL FACTORAnother variable in the equation is Israel’s posture. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently visited the United States, and Teichert said discussions likely included potential coordinated action.“I don’t see Israel going it alone,” he said, suggesting that any Israeli strike would likely occur in coordination with - or at least with the approval of - the United States.Given the scale of U.S. force deployment already in place, Teichert said joint U.S.-Israel action would be more plausible than unilateral Israeli strikes.As negotiations continue, the region remains on edge. Whether diplomacy succeeds or military action follows, Teichert stressed that clarity of objectives will be critical to avoiding a prolonged conflict.“The president must clearly define those objectives to his military planners,” he said. “Everything starts there.”