A senior U.S. official said on February 18 that President Trump’s national security adviser convened a meeting in the White House war room to discuss Iran and ordered that all U.S. forces taking part in the Middle East buildup be in place by mid‑March. The instruction sets a clear deadline for the current military posture and underscores Washington’s intention to present a coordinated deterrent to Tehran while a diplomatic track remains open.
The same official said the United States expects Iran to table a written proposal after the upcoming Geneva talks aimed at resolving the current stalemate. The demand for a formal, post‑talks submission signals that Washington is seeking tangible, negotiable commitments from Tehran rather than vague assurances, even as it keeps military options visibly prepared.
In a complementary diplomatic move, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to visit Israel on February 28 to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss Iran. The trip highlights close U.S.–Israeli coordination: Washington is marrying forward posture with high‑level consultations to ensure partners are aligned on both deterrence and any potential negotiating agenda.
The combination of a near‑term deployment deadline, insistence on a written Iranian proposal, and expedited consultations with Israel illustrates a dual track strategy—pressure and diplomacy—designed to extract concessions without immediate kinetic escalation. That balance is delicate: a visible force buildup can strengthen bargaining leverage but also raises the risk of miscalculation that could pull the region toward armed confrontation.
For international observers, the mid‑March target is significant because it creates a short political timeline that will shape the content and tone of the Geneva discussions. If Tehran fails to deliver a written plan acceptable to Washington and its regional partners, the administration will face a choice between extending the military presence, tightening sanctions or other penalties, or reopening more aggressive military options.
The United States’ moves will be watched closely by regional states, energy markets and global diplomatic actors. Allies and adversaries alike will interpret the deployment deadline and demands for written commitments as signals about U.S. resolve, its appetite for risk, and the administration’s preferred sequencing of pressure before diplomacy — all of which have repercussions beyond the immediate U.S.–Iran standoff.