The standoff with the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered its sixth consecutive week of escalating rhetoric, mutual threats and visible shows of force. The US has continued what officials describe as an unprecedented military buildup in the region, led by the deployment of the world's largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford. The move is expected to last at least three weeks.
Iran, for its part, has pressed ahead with propaganda videos and public displays of its military capabilities. At the same time, indirect negotiations are ostensarily underway, with a second round set to take place in Switzerland in midweek. Once again, there is a vast gap between the combative public declarations and rigid opening positions on both sides and the very fact of their meeting.
A key question is whether these talks are merely a tactic to buy time. Each side has its own interest in delay. For Washington, additional time allows for further force accumulation and the completion of operational planning. Tehran, meanwhile, appears to be betting that the longer the crisis drags on, the weaker the international legitimacy for a US strike will become. From the regime's perspective, the further events recede from the recent wave of domestic protests, the greater its chances of survival.
In my assessment, the American explanation appears more realistic, especially given the slim prospects of reaching even a minimal agreement on Iran's nuclear program. Such a baseline deal would require "zero enrichment" and the transfer of enriched material to a third country, let alone the far more complex issue of restricting and enforcing limits on Iran's ballistic missile arsenal.
Countdown to a decision
Public discourse in recent weeks has focused largely on one question: When will the US strike? As time passes and developments unfold, the possibility of defusing tensions without some form of military action, whether limited or extensive, seems to be fading.
Recent signals suggest that a countdown has begun toward the moment Trump decides to authorize that operation. While such a decision would not come as a surprise, its timing carries strategic significance. In June 2025, an Israeli strike carried out in full coordination with Washington took place just one day before scheduled talks between Iran and the US in Vienna, beyond the two-month ultimatum Trump had previously set.
Will history repeat itself, with another round of talks collapsing at the last minute due to military action? An answer may come as early as this week, possibly before the weekend, a time when Trump has often chosen to greenlight military operations over the past year.
Meanwhile, Iran continues to conduct itself as though the recent "12-day war" and the latest wave of protests never occurred, seemingly unaware that its current situation is the most precarious it has faced since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Whatever the timing of a potential strike, it will immediately shift attention to the "day after" and to a range of pressing short-term and long-term questions. In the immediate aftermath, how will Iran respond, and how broad will the confrontation become as a result? What targets will be hit, and how will those choices affect the duration of the conflict?
Over the longer term, equally weighty issues loom. Could military action trigger a renewed wave of protests leading to regime change, or to some other form of political transformation? Might the confrontation significantly alter the balance of power in the Middle East? From Israel's national security perspective, would the immediate threat posed by thousands of ballistic missiles, alongside the potential nuclear threat, truly be removed from the table?
Those who believed the central question was merely when the Americans would strike may soon find themselves disappointed. The day after a decision on military action, whenever it comes, will usher in a series of profound questions that are likely to linger for weeks to come.
