The flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier recently witnessed the dramatic landing of an EA-18G Growler, a powerful electronic warfare aircraft that represents just one component of a significant American military buildup in the Middle Eastern region. This deployment comes amid escalating tensions and raises critical questions about what strategic objectives the United States might realistically achieve through potential military action against Iran.
Substantial Military Assets Deployed to Region
Over the past fortnight, the United States has dramatically enhanced its military presence in waters and territories adjacent to Iran. The USS Abraham Lincoln, a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, has been repositioned from the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean, accompanied by three destroyers equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles. This formidable naval group represents a substantial increase in American firepower within striking distance of Iranian territory.
The carrier's air wing comprises eight squadrons, including advanced F-35C and F/A-18 fighter jets alongside the crucial EA-18G Growlers. These electronic warfare aircraft possess sophisticated capabilities to suppress air defence systems, potentially targeting what remains of Iran's air defences following last year's conflict with Israel.
Additional Defensive and Offensive Capabilities
Open-source intelligence monitors have identified transport aircraft delivering what appear to be American air defence systems to Gulf states. These deployments align with reports indicating that Patriot and Thaad antimissile batteries are being positioned to protect US bases from potential Iranian drone and missile counterattacks against regional military installations.
Furthermore, approximately thirty-five F-15 fighter aircraft have been redeployed from RAF Lakenheath in Norfolk to Muwaffaq Salti airbase in Jordan. Originally scheduled to return to the United States, these aircraft now provide additional defensive coverage for Israel, Jordan, Iraq, and the broader region should hostilities escalate.
Strategic Dilemmas and Potential Targets
Michael Carpenter, a former member of the US National Security Council under President Joe Biden, suggests that the most plausible military option might involve targeting Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This approach would mirror the capture-or-kill operation planned against Venezuela's former president Nicolás Maduro. Carpenter questions whether strikes against other Iranian military sites would significantly degrade the regime's capabilities, noting that such actions might fail to produce the strategic effects Washington seeks.
"Targeting Khamenei would represent a very fraught operation with a dubious outcome," Carpenter argues. He highlights that the planned operation against Maduro relied on "exquisite intelligence from the inside," developed over five months of CIA preparation with sources within the Venezuelan government. It remains uncertain whether similar intelligence networks exist regarding Iran's leadership, even with potential Israeli assistance.
Intelligence Challenges and Historical Precedents
During last June's twelve-day conflict, Israel demonstrated chilling effectiveness in assassinating Iranian leaders, with sources revealing that tracking bodyguards' mobile phones proved instrumental in locating targets. However, security procedures have likely been tightened since those operations, and as Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz acknowledged, Khamenei's security precautions kept him beyond reach during that summer's hostilities.
Iran's air defence capabilities appear limited against advanced American weaponry. Last June, Israeli jets operated extensively over Iranian territory without suffering losses, paving the way for subsequent US bombing of the nuclear enrichment facility at Fordow. More recently, the United States suppressed Venezuela's air defences within hours, demonstrating the potency of American electronic warfare capabilities.
Operational Complexities and Escalation Risks
A capture operation would need to cover considerable distances, with Tehran situated approximately one thousand miles from the Indian Ocean. This geographical challenge might steer military planners toward assassination attempts rather than capture missions. Such action would represent an extraordinary escalation, constituting an attempt by the United States to kill the leader of a country with which it is not formally at war and from which it faces no immediate, direct threat.
An anonymous Western analyst suggests that a US attempt to kill Iran's supreme leader appears "more likely than a capture attempt – and also less risky if it were to involve a standoff munition." However, the analyst emphasises that any such operation would "depend heavily on the intelligence and the number of people who've been co-opted (if any have been) from his protective detail."
Potential Consequences and Iranian Responses
The critical question remains what would follow any successful operation against Iranian leadership. The regime has demonstrated remarkable cohesion in violently suppressing demonstrators, with estimates suggesting approximately thirty thousand fatalities during recent protests. Even if Khamenei were eliminated, it remains uncertain whether any successor would shift policy in directions favourable to Washington. Although Khamenei has reportedly shortlisted three potential successors, a power struggle could ensue that the United States cannot effectively control.
What appears more certain is that Iran would mount an immediate military response. President Masoud Pezeshkian recently warned that any attack targeting Khamenei would constitute a declaration of war. Iran's most potent defensive capability lies in offensive action, particularly through its estimated two thousand high-speed ballistic missiles stored in underground "missile cities."
Potential Iranian Counterstrike Options
The most obvious target for Iranian retaliation would be the USS Abraham Lincoln and its accompanying warships. However, Matthew Savill of the Royal United Services Institute notes that Iran "may not be able to fix its position" with available surveillance capabilities while the carrier group operates in the Indian Ocean. "The US knows the closer to the Persian Gulf it goes, the more visible it is to the Iranians," Savill observes.
Alternative counterstrikes could target US military bases in the Gulf region, such as the al-Udeid airbase in Qatar, which serves as headquarters for US Central Command. Satellite imagery indicates this base recently received additional Patriot air defence systems. American planners must consider that during last June's conflict, fourteen percent of Iranian ballistic missiles penetrated sophisticated Israeli and US air defences.
Broader Regional Implications
Such retaliation risks international escalation, potentially drawing Gulf states and their allies into direct conflict. The United Kingdom has already forward-deployed the RAF's 12 Squadron, a joint UK-Qatari unit stationed at al-Udeid, to deter potential attacks and assist Qatari self-defence efforts. Another Iranian option might involve attempting to mine the Strait of Hormuz, closing this crucial waterway to merchant shipping, though this would rely on submarines that US forces would monitor closely.
While Iran's military options appear limited, the White House similarly faces constrained prospects for achieving an instant strategic knockout through military action. The substantial American military buildup near Iran creates formidable capabilities, but the fundamental question remains what sustainable political objectives such force could realistically accomplish against a regime that has demonstrated remarkable resilience and capacity for violent response.
