Why Has the U.S. Not Taken Military Action Against Iran Despite Heavy Troop Presence? Jin Yinan: Waiting for the Best Opportunity

Recently, the situation between the United States and Iran has escalated sharply, drawing global attention. The U.S. has launched its largest military buildup in the Middle East in decades, and President Trump has publicly stated that he is considering a "limited military strike" against Iran, sending a clear signal of potential military action. Meanwhile, Iran has recently announced that its defense forces are on full combat readiness and has conducted multiple rounds of live-fire exercises in the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman, intensifying its response to possible military strikes. Just as tensions between the U.S. and Iran are at a boiling point, diplomatic efforts from both sides have not ceased. A new round of U.S.-Iran negotiations is scheduled to take place on February 26 in Geneva, Switzerland, and there is widespread interest in whether this negotiation could become a turning point for de-escalating the U.S.-Iran situation. So, will the U.S. take military action against Iran soon? This is the topic of this issue of the "Yi Nan Military Forum."

Waiting for the Right Moment

The U.S. aircraft carrier "Ford" enters the Mediterranean Sea (Source: CCTV News)

Li Yue:

On February 20, President Trump stated that he is considering a "preliminary limited military strike" against Iran, aimed at forcing Iran to make concessions on the nuclear agreement. Subsequently, informed sources revealed that the U.S. military's timeline for action against Iran was either the 21st, 23rd, or 24th. However, these dates have passed without any action taken by the U.S. military. This has led to speculation that Trump has not yet made a firm decision on whether to take military action against Iran. Meanwhile, divisions within the U.S. decision-making circles on this issue have also intensified. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, has repeatedly advised Trump and senior officials to avoid military action against Iran to prevent the U.S. from getting embroiled in a protracted conflict. Professor Yi Nan, do you think the likelihood of the U.S. taking military action against Iran is high in the near future?

Jin Yi Nan: Historically, the contradictions between the U.S. and Iran have deep roots. Particularly, the Iranian Islamic Revolution that occurred in the late 1970s completely reversed the trajectory of U.S.-Iran relations. At that time, Iranian Shia leader Khomeini led large-scale protests against the Iranian monarchy, overthrowing the pro-American Pahlavi regime, which established a deep-seated enmity between the U.S. and Iran that has not dissipated to this day. This has led the U.S. to want to deal with Iran for a long time, with the key issue being when to take action, or the timing of military intervention.

Some may ask why the U.S. acted so quickly against Venezuela recently, but is hesitating to go to war with Iran. The fact is, Iran is completely different from Venezuela, which was recently attacked. Venezuela is a Caribbean nation, relatively close to the U.S., and is a small country where the U.S. has significant influence. Therefore, the U.S. had many favorable conditions for capturing President Maduro. However, dealing with Iran is entirely different. As we have analyzed before, to the east of Iran are Pakistan and Afghanistan, to the northwest is Turkey, and to the west is Iraq—none of these countries are aligned with the U.S. Even if the U.S. has a strong determination to strike Iran, it still faces many difficulties from a geopolitical perspective. Saudi Arabia recently made it clear that it would not allow U.S. forces to use its bases to launch airstrikes against Iran, which also presents certain challenges for U.S. military action against Iran. Therefore, from a historical and strategic interest perspective, the U.S. has long wanted to deal with Iran and to use military means to resolve the Iranian issue, but from a practical and political standpoint, it faces numerous challenges.

Previously, there were reports that the U.S. military would take action against Iran on February 21, but later it was said that strikes might occur on the 23rd or 24th. Subsequently, both the U.S. and Iran announced that they would hold talks on the Iranian nuclear issue on February 26 in Geneva, Switzerland. From this series of changes, one can see that the U.S. has consistently struggled to find the best timing for military action. Although the U.S. military has already deployed a large force in the Middle East, the U.S. is still hesitating, and the remarks from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also indicate that the U.S. military is not fully prepared; they still feel that their strength is insufficient. Engaging in a protracted war with Iran would be very unfavorable for the U.S., as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown. A quick resolution is in the U.S.'s interest; otherwise, the U.S. could find itself mired in a quagmire of war in the Middle East. From this perspective, taking military action against Iran is a significant test of U.S. military capability.

Unclear Objectives

File photo: Missiles stored at an Iranian missile base (Source: China National Defense News)

Li Yue:

The U.S. not only appears to lack confidence in its military capabilities but also seems unclear about what strategic objectives it wants to achieve by striking Iran. At the end of last year, the U.S. threatened that if Iran "expanded its ballistic missile production," it would take action against Iran. Later, when Iran dealt with domestic unrest, it triggered what the U.S. called a "red line," leading the U.S. to propose "punishing" Iran. Subsequently, it mentioned wanting to achieve "regime change" in Iran, and recently claimed it aimed to "substantially destroy" Iran's missile and nuclear capabilities through military strikes. Professor Yi Nan, do you think the U.S.'s indecisiveness regarding its strategic and tactical objectives is an important reason why Trump is finding it difficult to make a decision on military action?

Jin Yi Nan: If we were to rank the objectives the U.S. aims to achieve, its highest goal is undoubtedly to overthrow the theocratic regime in Iran and establish a pro-American government. The lowest goal is to curb Iran's nuclear capability, intending to use military strikes to impose a "nuclear cap" on Iran, or even completely eliminate Iran's nuclear capabilities. Therefore, the U.S. has made different statements regarding military action against Iran at different times. When the U.S. believes it has sufficient military and economic power and the right timing, it will pursue its highest goal—overthrowing the current Iranian regime. If the situation is not ideal, with a fragmented alliance system and many military vulnerabilities, the U.S. will then pursue its lowest goal—merely curbing Iran's nuclear capabilities.

There is a saying: "The distance between power and objectives is risk; the higher the objective, the greater the risk." The type of goal you set depends on whether you can reach it. If you can reach it, then the goal is reasonable. But what if you can't reach it? That indicates the risk is uncontrollable. Therefore, the U.S. is currently assessing whether it can achieve its objectives. Recently, the U.S. has been pressuring Iran through military means while also attempting to achieve its strategic goals through diplomatic means. The U.S. knows that if this issue is not resolved in the short term, it may find itself in even greater trouble.

"Toilet Crisis" and the Iran Nuclear Negotiations

U.S. presidential envoy Wittekov (center), Trump's son-in-law Kushner (left), and Oman's Foreign Minister Badr (right) (Source: China National Radio)

Li Yue:

Indeed, as you mentioned, from the statements of both the U.S. and Iran, both sides still hold expectations for the new round of negotiations on February 26 in Geneva. Previously, there were reports from the Iranian side indicating a willingness to make certain concessions, such as sending half of its existing high-enriched uranium abroad, diluting the remaining portion, and participating in the establishment of a joint venture for civilian uranium enrichment, in exchange for U.S. recognition of Iran's "right to peaceful uranium enrichment" and the lifting of economic sanctions against Iran. Some commentators view this as a positive signal that may bring a turning point to this standoff at a critical juncture. However, some analyses point out that Iran's concessions this time do not represent a comprehensive "compromise with the U.S.," and it is unlikely that the U.S. will significantly lift sanctions against Iran as a result. Professor Yi Nan, how do you view the new round of Iran nuclear negotiations?

Jin Yi Nan: I believe that the new round of talks in Geneva on February 26 is merely a stalling tactic. Although both sides have made some positive statements, no agreements have been reached. Due to the significant differences in positions on the nuclear issue, Iran will only make limited concessions. For the U.S., the situation is equally dire. Multiple media outlets have reported that nearly 90% of the 650 toilets on the "Ford" aircraft carrier, which has been operating in the Middle East, are broken, leading to an average wait time of 40 minutes for the 4,000 to 5,000 personnel aboard to use the restroom. We cannot rule out that the toilet issue on the "Ford" is one of the reasons why the U.S. is temporarily unable to take military action against Iran.

Sometimes, certain international issues are indeed very peculiar. On February 26, the U.S. and Iran are negotiating in Geneva, and I believe this may be a delaying tactic by the U.S.—to buy time for repairs on the "Ford" aircraft carrier and possibly for further military deployments. Therefore, the outcome of the February 26 negotiations is likely to be that Iran makes limited concessions, and the U.S., being in an awkward position, can only agree to continue negotiating the terms of the nuclear agreement with Iran, waiting until the toilet system on the "Ford" is repaired and more military forces are in place before deciding on the next steps—whether to strike or negotiate.

Source: China National Radio Military

Reporter: Li Yue