Deterrence or direct action? U.S. weighs next move in Israel-Iran conflict

The Israel-Iran conflict has entered its seventh day with no signs of de-escalation. What began on June 13 with Israel's massive airstrike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities has now triggered a volatile tit-for-tat cycle, with Iran launching retaliatory attacks.

As tensions spiral, questions are mounting: Will the U.S., currently playing a cautious role, take the final step and directly engage in this high-stakes confrontation?

Washington ramps up military deterrence

The U.S. initially maintained a cautious distance when the conflict erupted. But recently, it has deployed significant military assets. 

According to reports, the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier has left the South China Sea and is heading to the Middle East to join the Carl Vinson carrier strike group, creating a dual-carrier strike presence. Over 30 U.S. Air Force refueling planes have landed at European bases, hinting at preparations for long-range strikes. Fighter jets like F-16s, F-22s, and F-35s are repositioning in the region.

Experts say these moves signal Washington's preparation for both deterrence and possible intervention. However, direct U.S. involvement remains uncertain, shaped by domestic politics, battlefield changes, and concerns about getting trapped in another prolonged Middle East war.

While some analysts expect fighting to continue for weeks, they see a full-scale, prolonged war as unlikely, given military limits on both sides and growing international pressure for de-escalation.

Trump's strategic ambiguity

Despite the growing military preparations, U.S. President Donald Trump's position on direct intervention is still unclear. According to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Trump approved attack plans on Iran Tuesday night but held back final orders in case Tehran agrees to abandon its nuclear program.

Trump's hesitation stems from strategic concerns. A key target reportedly under Trump's consideration is Iran's Fordow nuclear facility, buried deep under a mountain and only vulnerable to the most powerful bunker-busting bombs – capabilities Israel lacks and urges the U.S. to use. Yet Trump remains skeptical – he wants to be certain that any attack would not only succeed but also avoid dragging the U.S. into another prolonged war, according to sources cited by WSJ.

Besides, though Trump is greenlighting military preparations, he continues to leave the door open for diplomacy and has reportedly rejected an Israeli proposal to assassinate Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. On Wednesday, he stated that a deal with Iran remains possible, adding that Iran has expressed interest in negotiations and even proposed a visit to the White House.

Zhu Zhaoyi, a researcher at the University of International Business and Economics, said this contradictory signaling shows the U.S.'s struggle to balance alliance obligations with national interests: supporting Israel while avoiding a regional quagmire.

Liu Zhongmin, professor at Shanghai International Studies University, noted U.S. military and diplomatic actions mainly aim to pressure Iran. "On one hand, the U.S. is exerting maximum diplomatic pressure; on the other, it is building military deterrence. Whether it intervenes depends on its strategic objectives."

The stakes of intervention

Li Yanan, deputy director of the Middle East Studies Institute at China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, told China Media Group that the U.S.'s decision to intervene directly depends on three key factors.

First is Israel's ability to act alone. If Israel cannot neutralize Iran's nuclear program or force Tehran to quit, Washington may feel compelled to step in. Second is the risk of U.S. casualties – any Iranian attack on American bases or personnel could trigger retaliation. Third is Israel's security – significant damage to Israeli territory or civilians might drag the U.S. deeper into the conflict.

Sun Degang, director of the Middle East Studies Center at Fudan University, said the unpredictability of the current U.S. administration makes intervention hard to predict. He warned that a direct strike on Iran's nuclear sites could trap the U.S. in a deeper regional conflict and spark a direct confrontation with Tehran.

Beyond military factors, domestic and geopolitical concerns matter. Public opinion in the U.S. strongly opposes direct military involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict. A recent Economist-YouGov poll showed 60 percent of Americans oppose intervention, with only 16 percent supporting it. The public's reluctance is shaped by costly, drawn-out wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Furthermore, Trump faces internal divisions within his own political base. Traditional Republican hawks back Israel strongly, but a vocal "America First" faction rejects new military entanglements, seeing them as betrayals of Trump's non-interventionist stance. These divisions complicate the president's decision-making.

Zhu Zhaoyi also pointed out that Washington has shifted strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific and is reluctant to divert resources back to the Middle East. He predicts direct Israel-Iran hostilities may continue for weeks, but a prolonged all-out war is unlikely.

"Israel has the upper hand in military technology, but completely eliminating Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities is unrealistic. Iran, while capable of inflicting damage, lacks the means to threaten Israel's survival," Zhu said. "Both sides are likely to show restraint under international mediation and eventually reach a tacit ceasefire through backchannel negotiations."