The United States is substantially reinforcing its military posture in the Middle East as indirect talks with Iran open in Geneva, broadening the gap between diplomatic engagement and the threat of force. U.S. aircraft stationed in the United Kingdom — including tankers and fighters — have been redeployed closer to the region while additional air-defence systems and extended troop rotations have been routed to bases in Jordan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Satellite imagery published by Western outlets shows a contingent of some dozen F-15 fighters operating from Jordan’s Muwaffaq Salti airbase, a visible sign of the closer-forwarding of strike assets.
U.S. transport planes have moved equipment across the Atlantic in recent weeks and allied airspace has been used to reposition combat aircraft nearer to Iran. Washington has also maintained a carrier strike group in the region and reports indicate a second carrier may be en route, reinforcing public warnings that “all options” remain on the table. The deployments fit a pattern of pressure intended both to deter Iranian escalation and to preserve the option of military strikes should diplomacy falter.
At the same time as forces have been repositioned, diplomatic activity continues. Oman’s foreign minister met Iran’s foreign minister in Geneva on February 16, reflecting Muscat’s intermediary role that has already facilitated talks held in Muscat earlier this month. The next round of indirect U.S.–Iran discussions was scheduled for February 17 in Geneva, with both sides so far publicly maintaining their core positions even as officials describe a willingness to engage.
This dual-track approach—intense diplomatic contact coupled with visible military readiness—echoes past cycles of crisis management between Washington and Tehran. Since the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal and the reimposition of sanctions, interactions have alternated between covert negotiations and overt pressure, with regional host nations such as Jordan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia playing logistical and political roles in supporting U.S. deployments.
The mix of signalling raises acute risks. Forwarding tankers, fighters and air-defence systems shortens timelines for any kinetic option and increases the potential for miscalculation or unintended clashes with Iranian forces or proxies. Insecurity in the Gulf also carries global costs: shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, regional energy supplies and investor confidence in Middle East stability could all be affected if tensions spike further.
For regional allies the posture presents a dilemma. Gulf states have welcomed U.S. deterrent capabilities but must also manage the danger of being drawn into a wider conflict. European partners and other mediators face the task of keeping backchannels alive while trying to limit military escalation. Tehran’s response will be pivotal: it can either be deterred into concessions at the negotiating table or provoked into ramping up asymmetric attacks that complicate any peaceful resolution.
What happens next hinges on the interaction between bargaining and brinkmanship. A credible diplomatic offer from either side could calm the military build-up, but a breakdown in talks would leave Washington politically positioned to justify limited strikes while increasing the odds of a broader regional conflagration. The current posture is therefore a high-stakes gamble: it places maximum pressure on Iran while simultaneously raising the price of failure for all parties involved.