Why the US–Iran War Still Has Not Begun — and What Is Really Stopping Trump

For several weeks now, the world has been living in anticipation of a major war between the United States and Iran. Aircraft carriers, strategic aviation, ultimatums, and sharply escalating rhetoric have created the impression that a military strike is merely a matter of time.

Photo: commons.wikimedia.org by Adam Jones from Kelowna, BC, Canada, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

Iranian flag

When Pressure Matters More Than War

Yet week after week passes, and the war does not begin. Why is a scenario that appears almost inevitable being postponed again and again, and what factors are truly restraining escalation?

At first glance, everything looks like preparation for a large-scale military clash. The United States is concentrating forces, strengthening air and missile defense, issuing tough demands, while Iran responds with harsh statements and demonstrations of readiness to resist. However, a closer analysis reveals that what is unfolding looks less like direct preparation for war and more like a carefully staged demonstration conflict, where pressure, intimidation, and signaling matter more than an actual strike.

To understand why this show of force has not yet turned into combat operations and what exactly Donald Trump fears, it is necessary to examine three key elements step by step: the scale of the US military buildup, the evolution of the ultimatum to Iran, and the factor of big geopolitics that has pushed the conflict far beyond the Middle East.

The US Military Demonstration: Scale, Numbers, and Real Meaning

In January, the administration of Donald Trump shifted to a large-scale military demonstration in the Middle East. This was not a symbolic reinforcement but the deployment of a full-fledged strike-and-defense configuration.

According to open sources and reports from specialized media, the following forces were deployed to the region:

• an aircraft carrier strike group led by a nuclear-powered carrier of the Nimitz or Gerald R. Ford class, with an air wing of up to 70-80 carrier-based aircraft, including fighters, strike aircraft, and electronic warfare planes;
• multi-purpose destroyers and cruisers equipped with the Aegis system and armed with SM-3, SM-6, and Tomahawk missiles, as well as submarines carrying cruise missiles capable of delivering covert strikes on ground targets;
• US Air Force strategic aviation, including B-1B and B-52 bombers deployed on a rotational basis and capable of carrying long-range precision weapons;
• airborne early warning and reconnaissance aircraft, including AWACS and intelligence platforms, ensuring continuous monitoring of air and maritime space;
  additional Patriot batteries, missile defense elements, and early-warning systems deployed to protect US bases and allies in the region.

The key point is that alongside its strike potential, the United States simultaneously strengthened its defensive perimeter. Washington was preparing not so much to deliver the first blow as to withstand a potential massive response. In other words, the US was preparing less to strike than to absorb retaliation.

Trump's Ultimatum: Four Demands as a Deliberately Inflated Bar

Against the backdrop of this military concentration, the White House presented Iran with a tough package of four demands:

• an end to shootings and executions;
• a halt to repression against protesters;
• abandonment of the nuclear program;
• termination of the development of extended-range missiles.

This was a classic opening position of an ultimatum, where exaggerated demands create room for subsequent bargaining.

Even then, experts pointed out that the third and fourth points strike at the core of Iran's strategic sovereignty and are therefore virtually impossible to fulfill without regime capitulation.

The 'Deflation' of the Ultimatum: A Warning Signal

Only a few days pass, and the ultimatum begins to fall apart.

• the first two points disappear from public rhetoric;
• the White House states that "mass executions are not being recorded”;
• the missile program gradually fades from the foreground;
• the negotiating framework narrows to the nuclear issue alone.

This is a crucial indicator: a hard ultimatum is transforming into a minimally achievable goal that can be presented as a political success without war.

From a negotiating perspective, this means one thing: the initial pressure did not work as expected.

Regional Refusal: The Persian Gulf Steps Aside

Almost simultaneously with the softening of US demands, Washington encounters another problem: the region refuses to participate in a war.

Through diplomatic channels it becomes clear that:

• Persian Gulf states are unwilling to provide their airspace;
• infrastructure and bases are in question;
• participation in a strike on Iran is viewed as an existential risk.

The reasons are obvious. Iran has officially warned that it would strike any participants in aggression. Oil infrastructure, ports, and terminals fall within the potential strike zone. Even a limited conflict threatens markets, budgets, and the internal stability of Gulf monarchies.

As a result, the United States finds itself in a situation where war is technically possible but politically and logistically toxic.

The Closed Stage: China, Supply Rumors, and Power Signaling

Against this backdrop, developments begin that are scarcely commented on officially.

Online and in alternative media, reports emerge about Chinese military transport aircraft allegedly arriving in Iran and about deliveries of equipment and military cargo.

It is important to emphasize that there is no reliable confirmation of these claims. However, the very spread of such rumors serves a purpose: either as a real signal of covert support or as an information operation designed to show that Iran is no longer alone. In either case, the effect is the same — the stakes are raised.

The Main Confirmed Signal: Russia-China-Iran Exercises

What is fully confirmed is the public conduct of joint naval exercises by Russia, China, and Iran in the northern Indian Ocean.

Formally, these are described as "planned maneuvers.” In reality, they represent a demonstration of a political and military triangle.

The message is addressed not only to the United States, but also to Persian Gulf states, regional actors, and financial and energy markets. The meaning is clear: any strike on Iran affects not a regional, but a global balance.

Why Iran Is a Critical Point for Russia and China

At this stage, the conflict definitively goes beyond the Middle East. Iran is a geopolitical and transport hub of Eurasia.

For Russia, it represents the North-South corridor, access to the Persian Gulf, India, and Asia, an alternative to routes through the Baltic and Black seas that are under NATO control, and a tool for export and logistics diversification. The loss of Iran would mean effective strategic containment.

For China, Iran is a key link in the Belt and Road Initiative, a land route to Europe, and a connection with Russia and the Caucasus. Destabilizing Iran would sever land logistics, strengthen US control over sea routes, and sharply increase the cost of Chinese exports to Europe.

The conclusion for both Moscow and Beijing is the same: losing Iran would result in massive economic and strategic losses.

Why This Became Global — and Stopped Trump

From this point on, a strike on Iran ceases to be a regional action and becomes direct interference in the global balance of power. Any military decision would automatically extend beyond the Middle East and touch the interests of Russia and China.

Even without public threats, it became clear that behind closed doors the United States received an extremely firm signal: further escalation is unacceptable.

The Final Meaning of What Is Happening

This explains the paradoxical picture we are observing. The louder the threats sound, the more cautious real actions become. In public, there is a demonstration of strength. Behind the scenes, there are negotiations, mediation, and a search for compromise.

Most likely, the world is facing a prolonged theater of intimidation designed to conceal the main goal: avoiding the crossing of a dangerous line. Because a war involving Iran, Russia, and China is no longer a tool of pressure. It is a risk of global collapse.

And What About Israel?

This logic appears to be well understood in Israel as well. Despite heightened military readiness, air defense alertness, and civil defense preparations, the political agenda of recent days has focused primarily on domestic issues — the state budget, internal political bargaining, and debates over Gaza.

The Iranian issue has noticeably receded into the background, which in itself is telling. Jerusalem is preparing for risks, but it is not living in the logic of an inevitable war.