The deployment of a formidable American naval force, spearheaded by the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, to the Middle East represents a long-awaited development. For weeks, conversations with individuals inside Iran – men and women enduring the oppressive weight of the Islamic Republic – have revealed a profound emotional landscape. Alongside the deep-seated pain of their suffering, another sentiment emerges repeatedly: a palpable and growing rage.
A Nation's Fury Directed Inward and Outward
This fury is twofold. Iranians are incensed by a regime that has systematically oppressed, tortured, and killed its citizens for decades. Increasingly, however, that anger is also directed towards the West. When Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the late Shah, called for an uprising against the theocratic rulers, many heeded the call. When former President Donald Trump proclaimed on his Truth Social platform that 'help is on its way', countless Iranians placed their hope in that promise.
The promised assistance, crucially, never materialised. Speculation suggests Trump was dissuaded from authorising a strike at the final moment. While the full truth may remain obscured, the consequences are starkly clear. Emboldened by the perceived lack of consequence, the regime moved decisively to crush dissent.
The Brutal Aftermath of Broken Promises
Communications were severed, streets were flooded with Basij militia and Revolutionary Guards, and a campaign of terror was unleashed. The state hunted down and executed those merely suspected of dissent. Security forces raided homes, committed murders in public view, and even dragged the wounded from hospital beds to be killed.
While official figures cite approximately 6,000 deaths, medical professionals and eyewitnesses within Iran describe a campaign of close-range killings – with wounds to eyes, chests, and genitals – and mass executions. Credible estimates suggest the death toll may surpass 30,000, with some accounts indicating an even higher number. The precise figure, however, is almost secondary to the horrifying reality: this constitutes mass state violence against a civilian population on a scale not witnessed since the Islamic Republic's most brutal early years.
The Complex Calculus of Intervention
We must maintain clear-eyed realism. Sympathy alone is not a strategy, and anger does not constitute a policy. Military strikes against the Mullahs do not guarantee regime change; and regime change itself does not automatically herald freedom or stability. The painful lessons from Iraq should have dispelled any such illusions.
Iran is a vast, ancient, and intricately complex nation fraught with deep social and ethnic divisions. The collapse of the current theocracy could potentially pave the way for an even more dire situation. Yet, an equally stark truth persists. The regime has consistently ignored all appeals for restraint, responding only to the language it comprehends best: raw force.
The Paramount Importance of Credibility
This is where credibility becomes paramount – American credibility, Western credibility, and the credibility of every leader who has warned Tehran that its repression carries a price. Former President Trump has expressed a understandable reluctance to be mired in another endless Middle Eastern conflict. However, between total inaction and launching a full-scale crusade, there exists significant space for measured, purposeful action. American military power can be applied with surgical precision and clear intent.
The Islamic Republic's strength is underpinned by three critical pillars: its internal security apparatus; its network of regional militias; and its capacity to project threat far beyond its borders. It is this final capability – encompassing missile forces, special operations teams, and naval assets – that emboldens Tehran to slaughter its own people, operating under the assumption that the international community will remain too fearful to intervene.
Mapping a Surgical Response
The United States and its allies possess detailed intelligence on the regime's military nerve centres. Israeli intelligence has spent decades meticulously mapping the structure of the Revolutionary Guards. Iran's navy continues to serve as both a sword, menacing vital global trade routes, and a shield, behind which the leadership believes it can act with impunity against its populace. These assets must be decisively targeted.
Previous confrontations have proven insufficient. The brief, brutal exchange with Israel in June – the so-called 12-Day War – which involved Israeli strikes on military and nuclear sites and Iran's retaliatory missile barrages, altered little for the Iranian people. Similarly, the US operation Midnight Hammer, which successfully hit nuclear facilities at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan, degraded hardware but did not compel surrender. The regime simply rebuilt its missile stocks and redeployed its machinery of terror against citizens six months later.
The Mechanics of Modern Warfare
Striking this machinery does not necessitate the carpet bombing of cities or military occupation. It requires resolve, strategic clarity, and the willingness to employ force intelligently and in combination. A modern, surgical campaign could utilise B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, invisible to radar, to deliver bunker-busting munitions on buried command centres. F-35 Lightning II and F/A-18 Super Hornet jets from the USS Abraham Lincoln could establish air dominance, striking missile sites and command nodes. Destroyers and submarines could launch Tomahawk cruise missiles from vast distances against launchers and naval bases, while coordinated cyber attacks scramble military infrastructure.
Such actions could include strikes on key energy infrastructure, like the oil terminals at Kharg Island and Bandar Abbas, to apply concurrent economic pressure. Yet, the ultimate objective must be to restore the confidence of the Iranian people, enabling them to return to the streets without the fear of wholesale slaughter.
The Critical Need for Nuance
Therefore, the armada's response must be meticulously calibrated, despite its overwhelming firepower. As Behnam Ben Taleblu, senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, warns, a repeat of the overwhelming attacks seen in June would be counterproductive. Suppressing Iran's long-range missile capability is critical, but if the Iranian populace perceives the American response as merely a resumption of the 12-Day War, they are likely to retreat into their homes rather than protest.
Critics may argue that any action now is a distraction from domestic scandals, or that it risks dangerous escalation. These concerns carry weight. However, inaction possesses its own escalatory logic. Each time the West draws a red line only to erase it, the lesson internalised in Tehran is unambiguous: intensify the brutality, and wait for the inevitable storm to pass.
The people of Iran are watching. Thus far, they feel abandoned to their executioners. In conversations, they express a desperate desire to see the regime that terrorises them held accountable for its brutality – a promise once made. The United States possesses unrivalled military might. What it has too often lacked is the political will to translate moral rhetoric into decisive, concrete action.
If this naval armada is to be more than a fleeting photograph or a dramatic headline, it must ultimately provide the people of Iran with the tangible means to conclude their struggle – and end the rule of the Mullahs for good.
