Washington: The growing presence of the US military near Iran is no longer just a threat. The deployment of warships and aircraft, including the USS Abraham Lincoln near Iranian waters, suggests real preparation for potential action. Another carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, is moving eastward, positioning itself for possible operations.
Additional military equipment has been brought into the region, indicating that the United State is preparing multiple options. While such moves could be aimed at diplomatic pressure, they also suggest that talks between the two countries may have stalled. If neither side adjusts its position, a military confrontation could follow.
The question is why do Iranian leaders, at least publicly, continue to resist the world’s most powerful military and its strongest regional ally in the Middle East?
The answer lies in the conditions the United States has set for negotiations. From Tehran’s perspective, agreeing to these demands would amount to surrender. America wants Iran to halt uranium enrichment and reduce the range of its ballistic missiles to remove any threat to Israel.
It also seeks the cessation of support for armed groups across the region and changes in Iran’s treatment of its citizens. These are not secondary policies for the Iranian leadership; they are central to the security system the country has built over decades.
Iran has established what it calls the “Axis of Resistance”, a network of allied armed groups designed to keep conflict away from its borders and shift pressure closer to Israel. Its ballistic missile programme compensates for limitations in its aging air force and restricted access to advanced military technology.
Officially, Iran’s nuclear programme is peaceful, but it is widely regarded as a cornerstone of the country’s strategic deterrence. Maintaining uranium enrichment lets Tehran have a basic nuclear setup that could be used for weapons if the government decides. Experts say this setup gives the country a way to exert strategic pressure.
Iranian leaders believe that conceding to US demands would weaken this foundation of resistance. For Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, accepting these terms could be more dangerous than engaging in a limited conflict under Donald Trump’s administration. Military confrontation, however costly, might be bearable. Giving up the country’s strategic posture could be unacceptable.
The risks extend beyond Iran. Any US strike targeting top leadership could destabilise succession plans and weaken the security apparatus that controls the country’s most lethal operational capabilities. Protests have erupted in recent weeks, suppressed only through force. A sudden shock to the government’s enforcement machinery could unpredictably change domestic power balances.
By maintaining a defiant position, Iranian leaders show both internal strength and external resolve. This posture also limits the space for negotiation.
The United States faces risks too. While its military is capable on paper, wars are not fought on paper. Misjudgments, escalating tensions and unforeseen outcomes can unexpectedly change conflict.
The recent 12-day conflict with Israel exposed vulnerabilities in Iran’s command structure and military infrastructure, while also highlighting lessons in resilience and strategic recalibration. A broader confrontation could produce outcomes neither side wants.
Iran’s central authority is not automatically stable. Any vacuum at the top could empower more extreme actors, complicating regional balance and posing challenges for the United States and its allies.
For Khamenei, few options are left. Accepting US demands risks undermining Iran’s strategic resistance. Rejecting them raises the threat of confrontation in an already fragile domestic situation.
Tehran appears to view the worst option as strategic surrender, while a limited and controlled conflict is seen as the least damaging path. Publicly, Iran seems to be leaning toward the latter.
