The U.S. military has in recent days significantly strengthened its presence in areas surrounding Iran, increasing the risk of a potential strike, even as both sides prepare for critical talks in Geneva on Thursday.

On Monday, the U.S. Navy's largest warship, the USS Gerald R. Ford, arrived at the NATO naval base at Souda Bay on the Greek island of Crete. After a four-day resupply, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is set to join the USS Abraham Lincoln, which arrived in the Middle East last month.

This marks the second time the U.S. has deployed two aircraft carriers to the region, the last being in June 2025 during the bombardment of Iran's nuclear facilities.

Simultaneously, U.S. aerial refueling tankers and C-17 Globemaster transport planes arrived at Israel's Ben Gurion Airport on Monday. The U.S. State Department also began evacuating non-essential personnel and their families from the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

Despite these military maneuvers, U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine reportedly warned the White House that the shortfalls in munitions and support from allies could mean greater danger for the U.S. troops in a potential strike on Iran. Caine also cautioned U.S. President Donald Trump that a military campaign against Iran could lead to a prolonged conflict.

However, Trump on Monday denied those reports, saying on his Truth Social platform that it was "100 percent incorrect" that Caine was "against us going to war with Iran."

Trump said: "I would rather have a Deal than not but, if we don't make a Deal, it will be a very bad day for that Country and, very sadly, its people."

Iran vows retaliation in case of U.S. attacks

A new round of U.S.-Iran talks is set for Thursday in Geneva and is expected to focus on Iran's nuclear program, including uranium enrichment levels and sanctions relief.

Despite the escalating military threats, Iranian military officials vowed to retaliate "ferociously" against any U.S. attack, warning that even a limited strike would be considered an act of aggression.

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iranian deputy foreign minister, on Monday described the talks in Geneva as "a new window of opportunity," but warned of the risk of a regional conflict if Iran was attacked.

"The consequences of any renewed aggression wouldn't remain confined to one country and responsibility would rest with those who initiate or support such actions," Gharibabadi said.

It remains uncertain if the "new window of opportunity" will bring a desired outcome for both the U.S. and Iran. However, Reuters reported, citing a senior Iranian official, that Iran has offered fresh concessions since their last talks ended in Oman. Besides, Iran said recently it will be ready to deliver a draft proposal for an agreement on its nuclear program to mediators in the coming days.

Uncertainty ahead

Though Iran has shown some flexibility on the nuclear issue, experts remain uncertain whether the U.S. and Iran can reach a preliminary agreement and whether the U.S. strike will become a reality.

Qin Tian, deputy director of the Institute of Middle East Studies of China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, expressed significant uncertainty about a potential agreement. He pointed out that Iran's concessions on nuclear issues do not constitute a comprehensive "compromise with the U.S.," making it unlikely that the U.S. will lift sanctions significantly.

Qin also highlighted the unpredictable role of Israel in U.S.-Iran negotiations. He noted that Israel is not willing to see a thaw in U.S.-Iran relations and could, in fact, initiate military action against Iran, potentially dragging the U.S. into the conflict.

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reaffirmed Israel's high alert status, warning Tehran that any attack on Israel would be met with an overwhelming response.

While agreeing there will be a possible temporary agreement between the U.S. and Iran as Iran makes concessions like agreeing to limit its nuclear activities, Niu Xinchun, a professor from the China-Arab States Research Institute at Ningxia University, emphasized that the success of negotiations will directly determine whether military action is taken.

Despite the U.S. military buildup, Niu noted that Trump is more inclined to resolve the issue through negotiations rather than war, due to significant domestic opposition to overseas military engagements. Trump's decision-making is also influenced by domestic political factors, including the upcoming midterm elections, Niu added.

(With input from agencies)