What the massive build-up of US military assets in the Middle East really means

The Pentagon has reportedly ordered the relocation of at least two Patriot surface-to-air missile batteries and a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile defense system from Asia to the Middle East.

There are also reports of a massive number of US military cargo flights traveling to the Middle East, with dozens of C-17s and several C-5s arriving at Isa Airbase in Bahrain as well as other bases near the Persian Gulf. Planes are also being delivered to Al Udeid Airbase in Qatar and Djibouti International Airport near Yemen.

The relocation of critical air-defences such as THAAD and the repositioning of the USS Carl Vinson and its Carrier Strike Group to the Middle East, as well as the deployment of at least six B-2 “Spirit” Long-Range Strategic Stealth Bombers recently to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, suggest that the United States may be preparing for a major conflict soon with Iran.

However, Yossi Mansharof, an expert on Iran and Shi’ite political Islam at the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy, has a different view. He told JNS that ending Iran’s nuclear programme through military action is “not something the Trump administration is currently aiming for.”

Trump appears to want to exhaust all diplomatic avenues before turning to the military option — or authorising Israel to do so.

Trump wants Tehran to negotiate and, according to Mansharof, “seeks to bring Iran to a point where the regime understands that the nuclear programme not only fails to advance its goals but actually endangers it and Iran’s national security.”

It would be “appropriate” for Trump to set a time limit for the negotiations “in order to give them credibility and compel the Iranian side to take him seriously,” Mansharof said.

That being said, according to Mansharof, “Trump has made it clear that if Iran does not respond to his offer to negotiate, the US itself will attack Iran.”

He added that Trump “would support an Israeli strike against Iran and might even order the US military to join the Israeli attack and carry it out jointly — if he concludes that Tehran is unwilling to make sufficient concessions or is not showing seriousness in the negotiations.”

Mansharof also told JNS he believes Trump wants to make Iran understand that “continuing the current course — progress in the nuclear programme, regional entrenchment, sponsoring Iran’s proxy network and developing the missile programme — will harm the regime,” and therefore, it would be “in Iran’s own interest to reach an agreement with the US in these three areas.”

According to Misztal, however, the Trump administration “has not explicitly expressed its willingness to back an Israeli strike.

“However,” he added, “the president’s general support for Israel and recent, increasingly bellicose warnings to Iran suggest that he is far more likely than any of his predecessors to not stop the Jewish state from doing whatever it feels is necessary to defend itself against the threat of a nuclear Iran.”

The threat is clear: Iran is aggressively advancing its belligerent agenda, disrupting the region as it pursues nuclear capabilities.

The IAEA report confirms what we already know

The Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) recently analyzed the International Atomic Energy Agency’s quarterly report, dated Feb. 26 and titled “Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015),” including Iran’s compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

In what should be highly concerning, the findings show that Iran “can convert its current stock of 60 percent enriched uranium into 174 kg [384 pounds] of weapon-grade uranium (WGU) in three weeks at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP), enough for 7 nuclear weapons, taken as 25 kg [55 pounds] of WGU per weapon.”

Perhaps more worrying is that Iran “could produce its first quantity of 25 kg of WGU in Fordow in less than one week,” according to the findings.

Shockingly, the ISIS analysis notes that Iran’s “total stocks of enriched uranium and its centrifuge capacity at Fordow and the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) combined are sufficient to make enough WGU for over ten nuclear weapons in one month and 12-13 in two months.”

In addition, as in several past Iran Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguards reports, the IAEA has been unable to obtain clear answers from Iran regarding the presence of “undeclared nuclear material and/or activities at four sites—Lavisan-Shian, Varamin, Marivan, and Turquzabad.”

The ISIS analysis highlights the IAEA’s “significantly reduced ability to monitor Iran’s complex and growing nuclear program.”

In short, the IAEA report confirms what we already know: Iran is on the march toward nuclearization and the IAEA lacks a clear picture of Iran’s activities.

Iran is developing its ballistic missile programme

One could argue that Iran might be enriching uranium but has yet to further develop its nuclear payload delivery system.

But a March 16, 2025, report in The Maritime Executive magazine noted that MV Jairan, owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) and the second of two Iranian cargo vessels that are believed to have loaded sodium perchlorate in China, was recently documented passing through the Straits of Malacca en route to Bandar Abbas.

“Sodium perchlorate is the primary feedstock for making ammonium perchlorate, used by Iranian solid-fueled ballistic missiles,” according to the report.

The ship is believed to have been carrying enough sodium perchlorate to refine sufficient ammonium perchlorate to fuel approximately 250 medium-range missiles of the types used by Iran to attack Israel in Operations True Promise-1 and 2—on April 13 and Oct. 1, 2024, respectively.

Current Iranian ballistic projectiles that use ammonium perchlorate include medium-range Kheibar Shekan and Fattah-1 missiles, and the shorter-range Fateh-110 and Zolfaghar missiles.

Regional concerns over striking Iran

If the US and/or Israel do ultimately strike Iran, Mansharof believes the Sunni states in the region “will respond with concern, fearing they might become targets of an Iranian retaliatory strike.”

Iran’s proxies in Gaza, Lebanon and Yemen — now severely weakened — “will limit Iran’s ability to respond to an attack, but it still has the potential to be dangerous,” Mansharof said.

In his view, “guarantees from the Trump administration are necessary” to ensure that the US will safeguard the security of regional Sunni states.

According to Misztal, “the regional response will almost certainly be determined by the effectiveness of any strike on Iran and the forcefulness of the United States in deterring an Iranian retaliation.”

He suggested that “it is possible to imagine another situation like we saw on April 13, 2024: the United States together with international and regional forces acting in concert to warn and defend Israel from Iranian retaliation.”

Now is the time to destroy the Iranian nuclear threat

According to Mansharof, “now is the time to address the Iranian issue at its root. Israel and the U.S. should jointly develop a comprehensive strategy against the Iranian threat in its various components.”

If Tehran is weakened, according to Mansharof, “in both Iraq and Lebanon, voices calling for reconciliation with Israel—currently suppressed by Iran’s proxy network—would gain strength. Without Iran, Saudi Arabia would have no barrier preventing it from joining the Abraham Accords, and the circle of peace in the region would expand significantly.”

Neutralizing the Iranian threat “would also benefit European national security, according to Mansharof. “The same applies to Africa, where Iran promotes ‘Shi’itization,’ particularly in Nigeria, where it supports the local Islamic movement.”

Mansharof told JNS that weakening Iran “would significantly advance global stability, as there is no continent today where Iran does not operate in some form.”

Misztal told JNS that “after decades of both the United States and Israel vowing to prevent a nuclear Iran, actually doing so would have dramatically beneficial repercussions around the world.”

He seemed to agree with Mansharof, saying that “in the Middle East, it would usher in the potential for a new, peaceful and cooperative region by lifting the Iranian threat that has held the region hostage for at least the last decade, reestablishing Israel as a regional superpower not to be trifled with, and re-opening the path to normalization with Saudi Arabia and others.”