The United States has authorized the departure of non-emergency personnel and their families from its embassy in Israel, a significant escalation in contingency planning that signals Washington is bracing for a military confrontation with Iran. Ambassador Mike Huckabee's urgent email to staff, urging those wishing to leave to do so "TODAY" and emphasizing that "while there may be outbound flights over the coming days, there may not be," reflects a level of urgency that transcends routine diplomatic caution. This action follows similar measures this week at the US Embassy in Beirut and comes as multiple countries, including Australia and several European nations, have begun withdrawing diplomatic dependents or advising citizens to avoid travel to Iran and Israel. The unmistakable message is that Western capitals view the risk of regional war as imminent and severe.
The diplomatic track that was supposed to avert this moment concluded its third round in Geneva on Thursday with no breakthrough, despite Omani mediators reporting "significant progress" and an atmosphere of "unprecedented openness to new and creative ideas and solutions". The reality beneath the diplomatic language is far grimmer. Reports indicate that Washington has presented maximalist demands amounting to the complete surrender of Iran's sovereign rights: a permanent agreement with no expiration date, the dismantling of Iran's three main nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, and the transfer of all enriched uranium to the United States. The Wall Street Journal and Axios have detailed these terms, which Iranian state media has firmly rejected, reiterating Tehran's red lines: no transfer of enriched uranium abroad, no cessation of enrichment on Iranian soil, and no negotiation over the nation's defensive missile program or its regional relationships.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the talks as "long and intense," acknowledging that while understanding was established on some issues, "on some issues, it is natural that we have differences of opinion". The gap between the two sides remains unbridgeable. Iran has demonstrated tactical flexibility, signaling willingness to cap enrichment at 3.67 percent, accept an international consortium for fuel supply, and place its 60 percent stockpile under continuous IAEA monitoring, all while keeping its missile program and regional allies off the table. But Washington's goal, as experts note, "goes beyond the narrow nuclear file to recalibrating the security environment surrounding Iran".
While diplomats exchange proposals, the United States has assembled the largest military force in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Two aircraft carrier strike groups, led by the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Gerald R. Ford, now operate within striking distance of Iran's coastline. More than 150 combat aircraft, including F-35 stealth fighters, have been moved to bases in Jordan and Israel, with extensive aerial refueling assets suggesting preparation for a sustained campaign lasting weeks, not a limited strike.
This is not merely a show of force. Military analysts examining the composition of this deployment note that it far exceeds the mobilization that preceded last June's strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Dana Stroul, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, observed that "the enormous level of power that has been assembled means the U.S. military can carry out whatever Trump decides, from a prolonged, high-intensity campaign to more targeted, limited strikes". Amer Sabaileh, a Jordanian political analyst, argued that "the military preparations and reinforcements the United States is carrying out in the region suggest that the possibility of war and U.S. strikes against Iran is highly likely".
President Trump has set an arbitrary timeline, warning that Iran has perhaps 10 to 15 days to reach a deal or face serious consequences. His State of the Union address offered little clarity, devoting barely three minutes to Iran and reiterating vague accusations about missile development and nuclear ambitions while claiming that Tehran's nuclear facilities had been "obliterated" in last June's strikes. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has insisted that the talks must go beyond nuclear issues to address Iran's ballistic missile program, which Tehran has repeatedly refused to negotiate.
The evacuation of embassies, the positioning of strike groups, the maximalist demands, and the arbitrary deadlines all point in one direction. As Omani analyst Khalfan al-Touqi warned, any new conflict "would be far more destructive than the 12-day war in June last year," with "dire consequences not just for Iran, but for the entire region".