America Sends Aircraft Carriers to the Gulf in Preparation for Extended Military Operations Against Iran - Can $88 Billion in Gulf Deals Replace the American Umbrella?

On February 13, 2026, the White House announced that the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford - the largest and most advanced aircraft carrier in the world - will leave the Caribbean heading to the Arabian Gulf in the next three weeks. This is not just a symbolic maneuver for deterrence, but an operational readiness for a military campaign that could last weeks against Iran, as confirmed by American officials to Reuters.

When Ford arrives, it will join the already deployed aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in the region, along with thousands of additional soldiers, dozens of fighter jets, guided missile destroyers, and surveillance aircraft. Militarily, this is not a routine reinforcement - it is a strike force capable of launching a sustained campaign, not just a single strike.

The Difference Between a Single Strike and an Extended Campaign

In June 2025, the United States executed Operation "Midnight Hammer" against three Iranian nuclear sites - it was a single strike with stealth bombers launched from U.S. territory, and it ended within hours. The Iranian response was very limited: two missiles targeted a U.S. base in Qatar.

What Washington is preparing for now is completely different. An American official told Reuters that planning includes striking Iranian state and security facilities, not just nuclear infrastructure. More importantly: "We fully expect Iran to respond, which will lead to strikes and counterstrikes and mutual escalation over a period of time."

This means that the Pentagon is not planning for a battle, but for a series of battles. This explains the need for two aircraft carriers - one for offensive operations, and the other for rotation and ensuring continuous coverage, in addition to air and missile defense.

Rapid Deployment Capability vs. Endurance Capability

The aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford is not an ordinary ship: a nuclear reactor gives it unlimited range, more than 75 fighter jets, advanced air defense systems, and firepower equivalent to full air bases of some countries. Its construction cost is $13 billion - more than the annual defense budget of most Gulf countries.

What should draw attention is the speed: Ford was in the Caribbean participating in pressure on Venezuela, then in the operation to seize former President Nicolás Maduro in January. Now, in just three weeks, it will be in the Gulf. This is what military personnel call "globally deployable power" - the ability to move massive firepower from one region to another in days.

Any military personnel who has served in the region knows that this capability cannot be purchased with arms deals. Gulf countries can buy hundreds of fighter jets, but they cannot move them from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic in two weeks. They can build bases, but they are fixed and vulnerable to Iranian missile strikes.

The Structural Contradiction: $88 Billion in Deals and a Free American Umbrella

Two weeks ago, the World Defense Exhibition in Riyadh witnessed the signing of deals worth $88 billion. The official discourse was about "strategic independence" and "defense localization." But today, as two American aircraft carriers head toward the Gulf, the fundamental question returns: what are Gulf countries really buying with these billions?

Practically, all these deals cannot provide what two American aircraft carriers offer: real deterrence against Iran, the ability to withstand thousands of ballistic missiles and drones, and most importantly - the political and military will to launch an extended campaign.

Gulf countries are spending billions on air defense systems (THAAD, Patriot), advanced fighter jets (F-35, Typhoon), and missile capabilities. But when it comes to a real confrontation with Iran, the first call is still to the Pentagon, not to the Gulf joint commands.

The Political Price of Protection

American bases in the region - Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Turkey - are not just military facilities, but strategic vulnerabilities. Tehran has explicitly stated that it will target any American base in the event of strikes on its territory.

This means that Gulf countries, which host these bases, will automatically become part of the battlefield, regardless of their political stance. American protection is not free - its price is becoming potential targets.

Trump said on Friday that Iran must agree to a deal "very quickly," or the alternative will be "very painful." But he did not clarify who will bear that pain. Military experience suggests that fixed bases - unlike moving aircraft carriers - will be the first targets.

Redefining Deterrence in the Gulf

What is happening now is not just an American-Iranian crisis, but a redefinition of the meaning of deterrence in the Gulf. Deterrence is no longer measured by the number of fighter jets or air defense missiles - but by the ability to rapidly deploy massive force, readiness for an extended campaign, and most importantly: the political will to use that force.

Gulf countries have the money to buy any weapon system. But they cannot buy three things: the ability for rapid global deployment, operational experience for an extended campaign against a country the size of Iran, and the political independence to act without Washington's approval.

After Midnight Hammer

In my view, Operation "Midnight Hammer" last year was a message. What is being prepared now is a campaign. The difference between the two is the difference between breaking a window and demolishing a building.

And here lies the contradiction that Gulf countries will face: the more they spend on "strategic independence," the more they realize they cannot do without the American umbrella. The two aircraft carriers heading toward the Gulf are not just a military reinforcement - but a reminder that $88 billion in deals cannot replace $13 billion of globally deployable power.

The question Gulf countries should be asking is not: how much weaponry will we buy? But: are we building real capabilities, or are we buying tools that we will not use without American permission?