President Donald Trump said he is considering dispatching an additional U.S. carrier strike group to the Middle East if negotiations with Iran fail, a move Washington frames as preparation for possible military action. The remark, reported on February 10, follows a U.S. official’s disclosure that the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln had moved into the U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility in the western Indian Ocean on January 26. That official added that, should the White House order strikes on Iran, the Lincoln strike group could in theory begin operations within “a day or two.”
Trump also reiterated a firm red line, declaring that “Iran will not have nuclear weapons or missiles,” language designed both to reassure U.S. regional partners and to signal deterrence to Tehran. The public posture from Washington comes as Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has reportedly been pressing U.S. officials in Washington — a diplomatic push that Tehran’s foreign ministry portrayed as an attempt to pull the United States into war.
Iranian officials struck a mixed note in response. Foreign Minister Araghchi accused Netanyahu of being a “supporter of war” and of trying to enlist Washington in conflict with Iran, citing Israel’s recent attacks across the region as evidence that the Israeli government prefers force to diplomacy. Separately, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council secretary Larijani, speaking from Muscat, urged U.S. decision-makers to remain sober about Israeli intentions and warned Washington to be highly alert to the “destructive role” Israel might play.
At the same time, Larijani told reporters that recent U.S.–Iran talks had made incremental progress and that Tehran was willing to continue negotiations “so long as they are feasible in reality.” He said a successful outcome on the nuclear issue could open the door to broader dialogue on other bilateral or regional disputes, though he cautioned it was too soon to say whether talks would move beyond crisis management.
The juxtaposition of military signaling and tentative diplomacy encapsulates the current U.S.–Iran dynamic: high-stakes deterrence measures run in parallel with limited, cautious engagement. For Washington, a carrier strike group is both an operational asset and a public symbol — a way to reassure partners like Israel and Gulf Arab states that U.S. power remains on call without immediately resorting to air strikes or covert operations.
But carriers are blunt instruments and operational readiness does not remove the political decision of whether to use force. Tehran’s senior officials are attempting to thread a narrow needle: they publicly scorn Israeli pressure and warn against escalation, while keeping the option of deeper talks alive if Washington offers acceptable terms. That posture helps Iran portray itself as willing to negotiate while seeking to deter direct military action.
The coming days will test whether U.S. signaling succeeds as deterrence or fuels further escalation. The presence of a carrier group shortens the timeline for kinetic options and raises the risk of miscalculation in a densely militarised theatre. Conversely, Tehran’s conditional openness to expand dialogue beyond nuclear limits a path to de‑escalation if Washington and Tehran can reconcile red lines and sequencing of concessions.
For international observers, the episode underlines how regional actors — above all Israel — can shape U.S. choices, and how military deployments and diplomacy remain tightly entwined. Whether this blend of pressure and negotiation moves the region toward a durable arrangement or simply freezes a volatile status quo will depend on the diplomats and generals in the coming days and weeks.