As the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln makes its way toward the Persian Gulf, the decisive moment between the US and Iran draws closer. At this stage, and despite the belligerent rhetoric on both sides, it is clear that a diplomatic solution is still very much an option. The same actors in Iran, in the US administration and across the region who blocked a strike last Wednesday are apparently using the waiting period to explore alternatives that could enable a political process between Washington and Tehran and avert escalation.
The carrier's arrival gives the United States considerable operational flexibility against Iran, ranging from dramatic steps such as targeting Iranian oil tankers that guarantee crude supplies to China, to direct strikes on targets inside Iran itself. Yet even with these capabilities in place, the core dilemma facing the administration remains unresolved: whether to settle for a show of force and diplomatic pressure aimed at producing a nuclear agreement on Washington's terms, or to pursue kinetic action designed to bring about regime change.
Moreover, the massive concentration of force in the Gulf does not answer the deeper strategic question: how to achieve a swift and meaningful outcome, potentially including regime change, without being dragged into a prolonged and costly campaign. At the same time, it is unclear how Washington could ensure that a post-regime Iran would not be taken over by forces even more extreme than the current leadership.
Tehran under pressure
Either way, the arrival of the aircraft carrier in the Gulf dramatically increases the level of pressure on Tehran, particularly amid possible threats to the life of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This also explains the threats voiced yesterday by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and why Iranian forces are apparently on high alert.
Much like the administration in Washington, the Iranian regime now faces a dramatic point of decision: whether to comply with US demands, a move that would require relinquishing key pillars of the regime's security doctrine, foremost among them uranium enrichment, or to stand firm and risk a military confrontation, a scenario Iran is least eager to see unfold.
Ultimately, the decision rests with Khamenei himself. The question is whether a leader who views the US as the "Great Satan" and the bitter enemy of the Islamic Revolution will be willing, despite his public declarations, to drink not just a cup but a "pitcher of poison" in order to save the regime.
If not, is there any actor within Iran with enough power to push him in that direction? This comes as it is far from clear how fully aware he is of the gravity of the situation and of the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran, even after suppressing protests, remains in an extremely fragile state. If Tehran fails to change course, the next wave of protests may only be a matter of time, given the country's severe economic distress.
Between Opportunity and Risk
From an Israeli perspective, this is an issue of opportunity against risk. The unprecedented US presence in the Gulf and the commitment demonstrated by the president on Iran brings Israel closer to achieving the strategic objective of a dramatic change in Iran's regime or, at the very least, a fundamental shift in its policy.
At the same time, there is the danger that Washington and Tehran could reach a nuclear deal that would not serve Israel's interests. As ever, opportunity comes hand in hand with risk. Iran may not choose to attack Israel in every scenario, but the the likelihood of Israeli involvement is likely to rise.
