U.S. Forces Poised for Possible Strikes on Iran as Diplomacy Continues

Lead

On Feb. 18, 2026, U.S. military assets began arriving in the Middle East in numbers that, officials say, give President Trump the option to order strikes against Iranian nuclear and missile sites as early as this weekend. The buildup, which includes the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford, comes even as indirect diplomatic talks took place in Geneva on Tuesday and Iran asked for two weeks to submit detailed proposals. The White House has given no public indication that a final decision has been made. The presence of U.S. forces has already prompted heightened Israeli preparations and renewed concern about rapid escalation across the region.

Key Takeaways

• The U.S. has accelerated a force buildup in the Middle East; officials say options exist for strikes this weekend if ordered by the president.
• The U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group is en route to the region and is part of a broader posture aimed at Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missiles and launch sites.
• Indirect talks in Geneva on Tuesday yielded what Iran’s foreign minister described as agreement on a “set of guiding principles,” but U.S. officials say major gaps remain.
• Iran requested two weeks to return with fleshed-out diplomatic proposals; many U.S. administration officials remain skeptical about a near-term deal.
• Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have pressed for measures to blunt Iran’s missile capability; Israel moved a security-cabinet meeting to Sunday amid heightened alert.
• An additional strike now would follow a 12-day conflict eight months ago in which U.S. and Israeli forces attacked Iranian military and nuclear targets, increasing the risk of a strong Iranian response.
• Analysts warn a new attack could prompt missile barrages against Israel and U.S. forces, widening the conflict and disrupting regional stability and energy markets.

Background

Tensions between Washington and Tehran have escalated over Iran’s nuclear activities and ballistic-missile development. President Trump has repeatedly demanded that Iran cease uranium enrichment and comply with stricter limits; U.S. officials say that demand remains central to any diplomatic solution. For its part, Iran has engaged in indirect talks mediated abroad while also continuing to expand its missile and nuclear-related infrastructure, according to Western assessments.

The region is still recovering from a 12-day conflict eight months earlier, during which U.S. and Israeli strikes targeted Iranian military and nuclear sites. That prior campaign reshaped military deployments and intelligence postures across the Middle East and left both Tehran and its regional rivals on higher alert. Israel, which would be directly threatened by Iranian missile strikes, has been preparing contingency plans and adjusting its force readiness in recent weeks.

Main Event

U.S. defense officials report a rapid consolidation of striking capability: carrier-based airpower, long-range strike aircraft, and supporting naval and logistics assets have been positioned to create multiple options for targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, ballistic missile stocks, and apparent launch sites. Pentagon and White House officials say the deployments were intended to expand President Trump’s set of choices rather than to signal that an attack is imminent.

Diplomatic channels remained active even as forces moved. Indirect talks in Geneva on Tuesday, described by Tehran as producing a “set of guiding principles,” did not close the most difficult gaps, U.S. officials said. Iran asked for two weeks to return with detailed proposals; American policymakers remain divided over whether that timeline is sufficient to resolve core disputes, particularly on enrichment limits.

Israeli authorities have intensified preparations. According to two Israeli defense officials, the cabinet’s security session was rescheduled from Thursday to Sunday as forces stayed at heightened alert. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pressed for measures to reduce Iran’s ability to strike Israel, arguing that preemptive pressure may be necessary to prevent future attacks.

Administration officials caution that any U.S. strike would carry significant risks, including retaliation against Israeli population centers and U.S. bases in the region. Military planners are weighing options that range from limited, surgical strikes against specific facilities to broader campaigns intended to degrade Iran’s longer-term capabilities.

Analysis & Implications

A U.S. decision to strike would test deterrence dynamics across the Middle East. Military planners can target discrete elements of Iran’s program, but eliminating a dispersed nuclear and missile infrastructure would require sustained operations and reliable, up-to-date intelligence. Even precision strikes can produce strategic effects well beyond their immediate targets if Iran responds with large-scale missile launches or asymmetric attacks via proxies.

Regional escalation risks are high. Iran has demonstrated ballistic-missile reach toward Israel and U.S. bases, and a punitive campaign could prompt Tehran to launch barrages at both military and civilian targets. That would place Israel’s civil-defense systems and U.S. force protection measures under severe strain and could draw other states into diplomatic or clandestine actions.

Economic and geopolitical fallout would likely follow. Oil and shipping insurers typically react quickly to sustained military operations in the Gulf, raising costs for global markets. Diplomatically, an attack would complicate relations between the U.S. and its partners, some of whom favor extended negotiations, and could provoke criticism in international fora over proportionality and civilian risk.

Comparison & Data

The table compares broad indicators of posture and diplomacy. The current deployment increases U.S. operational flexibility compared with the months immediately after the earlier 12-day conflict, while diplomacy has resumed in an indirect form that so far has produced limited convergence on core demands.

Reactions & Quotes

U.S. and Israeli officials framed recent moves as both a pressure tactic and an effort to preserve diplomatic space. Analysts emphasized the narrow window left to reconcile competing objectives without triggering a wider war.

“We have options available to the president, but no decision has been announced.”

Senior U.S. administration official (comment to reporters)

The White House framing underscores that force posture can serve to influence Tehran’s calculations even when leaders stop short of authorizing strikes. Officials described the deployments as intended to strengthen negotiating leverage while preparing for contingencies.

“A set of guiding principles was agreed in Geneva,”

Iranian foreign minister (statement)

Tehran’s characterization of the talks suggested some shared procedural ground, though both sides acknowledged significant substantive differences remain. Iranian officials asked for two weeks to return with concrete proposals, a timeline U.S. negotiators treated cautiously.

“Israel must blunt the missile threat that endangers our cities,”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (public remarks)

Netanyahu’s intervention reflects domestic and strategic pressures in Jerusalem to reduce Tehran’s strike capabilities. Israeli military planners are reportedly updating contingency options in parallel with allied preparations.

Unconfirmed

• Precise strike timing: reports that strikes could occur “as soon as this weekend” remain contingent on a presidential order and are not independently verified.
• Participation by Israeli forces: while Israel has prepared for involvement, formal commitments to participate alongside U.S. strikes have not been publicly confirmed.
• Content of Iran’s forthcoming proposals: Tehran’s two-week timeline to present detailed plans is reported by negotiators, but the substance and whether it would meet U.S. demands is unverified.

Bottom Line

The sudden availability of U.S. military options increases the pressure on both diplomacy and decision-making in Washington and Tehran. Deployments expand tactical choices but do not remove the strategic risks: any strike risks provoking a large-scale Iranian military response, deepening regional instability and exacting civilian and economic costs.

For now, the situation hinges on two parallel timetables: diplomatic exchanges in the coming days and the pacing of military preparations. Observers should watch for firm public signals from the White House, detailed proposals from Iran at the end of its two-week window, and any movement in Israeli operational posture that would indicate coordination on a strike plan.

Sources

• The New York Times — U.S. news report summarizing official statements and reporting from Feb. 18, 2026.