Dr. Ali Aljabiri: The U.S. Military Buildup in the Middle East: Calculated Deterrence or Preparation for War?

The scale and tempo of current U.S. military movements in the Middle East cannot be dismissed as routine force posture adjustments. In recent days, Washington has reinforced its regional presence with the deployment of a second aircraft carrier, the extension of the USS Gerald R. Ford’s deployment, and the activation of an intensive air bridge transporting heavy lift aircraft, F-35 fighters, and electronic warfare assets to bases in Jordan and across the Gulf.

History offers a clear lesson: militaries do not mobilize at this scale for symbolic messaging alone. At a certain threshold, the question is no longer whether escalation is possible, but how far it could extend.

Deterrence, in its classical military sense, typically relies on the visible demonstration of capability. What we are witnessing, however, appears to go beyond signaling. The sustained transport of equipment, expanded aerial refueling support, deployment of stealth aircraft, and reinforced naval positioning collectively resemble the construction of operational capacity — capacity designed not merely for a limited strike, but for a campaign that could endure for weeks.

Recent reporting suggests U.S. officials are preparing for the possibility of prolonged operations rather than a short, discrete action. Whether or not such plans are ultimately executed, the infrastructure required for sustained combat appears to be taking shape.

That said, readiness does not automatically equate to a decision for war. American strategic doctrine has long favored the concept of “deterrence through overwhelming preparedness” — building a fully capable operational theater in order to strengthen diplomatic leverage and shape adversary calculations. Historical precedents, from the Cuban Missile Crisis to the Taiwan Strait tensions of the 1990s and the escalation with Iran in 2019, demonstrate that significant force deployments do not inevitably culminate in open conflict.

The true indicator of intent will not be found in political rhetoric, but in logistics. The scale of munitions stockpiling, the expansion of forward defensive systems, and the establishment of long-term sustainment infrastructure will ultimately determine whether this posture remains deterrent or transitions into active operations.

For now, the picture remains ambiguous. The buildup is structured for deterrence, yet sufficiently robust to serve as a launch platform for wider military action should a political decision be made.

In the Middle East, what is often described as “deterrence” is rarely the opposite of war. More often, it is war’s immediate shadow. Nearly every major conflict in the region has been preceded by a phase labeled deterrence. What we may be witnessing today could follow that familiar pattern — where the distance between threat and execution is not defined by intention alone, but by timing, and a decision waiting to be made.