Trump and Iran: Watch This Space
- Gregory Andrews
- 35 minutes ago
- 4 min read
If you’re wondering like me what the Trump Regime’s next move will be on Iran, it’s worth looking at the logistics.
This infographic isn’t official. It’s a best-effort snapshot stitched together from open sources. But the broad picture is hard to dismiss. The US is sending serious naval and air power into the Middle East, and it’s doing so with a tempo and density that looks far more like preparation for war than anything routine.
Trump also just tightened the timeline at his inaugural “Peace Board” meeting by announcing he would decide in the next 10–15 days whether to wage war on Iran. Deadlines don’t create calm. They compress options. They narrow the space for diplomacy, especially when both sides need to save face and neither is willing to look like it blinked.
There’s also no point pretending that Trump’s ego and chaotic political madness aren’t part of the story. This is a President who confuses impulse with strategy, and treats personal dominance as policy. That doesn’t mean everything is theatre, but it does mean the usual assumptions - disciplined process, clear objectives, steady messaging - no longer apply.
And yes, it’s hard not to notice the timing. When a leader is under pressure at home, foreign crises can become convenient distractions. The Epstein mess will be in the background of every political calculation in Washington right now. But that’s not what’s really driving this. The scale of the deployments, the work being done by the Pentagon, and the risks being accepted across the region suggest something more serious than a media diversion.
Military action now looks highly likely
You don’t deploy this much capability unless you want your opponent to believe you’ll use it. This is more than just a show of presence. It’s the assembly of credible options: carriers and escorts, fighters, tankers, airlift, and layered air defence. It’s posture you build when you want the other side to know you’re not bluffing.
Iran, meanwhile, will be remembering what happened to Libya. It won’t interpret “give in” as “you’ll be safe”. Backing down would be existential. That doesn’t mean Iran’s leaders won’t negotiate. But it does mean they’re unlikely to accept terms that strip away what they see as deterrence and regime survival - missiles and potential nuclear capabilities.
Oil sits underneath all of this too, like it always does in the Gulf. Iran’s geography gives it leverage over global energy markets, and any conflict risks spiking prices, shaking confidence, and punishing households far beyond the region. The energy system is one of the ways this crisis escapes the Middle East and becomes everyone’s problem, very quickly.
And this brings us to a glaring contradiction in Trump’s own story. His stated rationale is Iran’s nuclear capability. Yet he claimed last year that US bunker-buster strikes on Fordow had effectively destroyed that capability. If that were true, why would war with Iran be necessary? And if it’s not true, how can anyone trust the claims Trump is using to justify escalation?
There is another reason not to assume rationality here. The Trump regime’s support for Israel has been so extreme, so unqualified, and so detached from humanitarian reality that it should warn all of us against expecting careful calibration on Iran. When a government demonstrates it will back an ally regardless of consequences, and regardless of how many red lines are crossed, it’s signalling that restraint isn’t its default setting.
Even coercive diplomacy is brutally expensive
Let’s assume, for a moment, that this is “only” coercive diplomacy: maximum pressure backed by real capability, designed to force an Iranian concession without firing a shot.
If that were the case, it’s at an extraordinary cost. Carrier strike groups are hugely expensive to operate, full stop. Add all the fighter jets and tankers, plus airlift, spares, maintenance cycles, deployment allowances, and the hidden cost of accelerated wear and tear, and you’re quickly talking about huge sums of money. As a rough, order-of-magnitude estimate, a month of deploy-and-deter at this scale easily exceeds US$1 billion and could push towards US$2 billion, even without a single weapon being used.
That matters for two reasons. First, it signals how serious the posture is: this is not free theatre. Second, it shows how much Donald Trump is willing to spend to keep the world on edge.
Watch this space
Deadlines, big deployments, maximal demands, and a target that doesn’t see backing down as safety: this is a recipe for miscalculation becoming normalised.
And if it does tip into conflict, the costs won’t stay localised. Iran has the means to retaliate, to drag neighbours into the fire, and to turn shipping lanes and oil infrastructure into targets. That means deaths, economic shock, and a regional escalation ladder that nobody can truly control once the first strike hits.
If this ends in war, which it probably will, it won’t be because nobody saw it coming. We are watching it assemble in real time.
