Middle East on the edge: What if Washington and Tehran trigger war for real?

Middle East on the edge: What if Washington and Tehran trigger war for real?

RT

As a growing American naval armada moves into position in the Gulf of Oman, the long-simmering confrontation between Washington and Tehran is entering one of its most dangerous phases in years. While diplomacy remains officially on the table, starting in several days, regional experts warn that miscalculation, ambiguity, and hardened positions on both sides could push the Middle East toward a conflict with global consequences.

The American military buildup in the Gulf of Oman continues, placing US forces within striking distance of Iran should Washington decide to act. President Donald Trump has repeatedly insisted that Tehran must return to the negotiating table and make far-reaching concessions, not only on its nuclear program, but also on its ballistic missile arsenal, which the US and Israel view as a direct threat, and on Iran’s support for armed groups such as Yemen’s Houthis and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

Last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi signaled that Tehran was open to negotiations, and reports suggest talks could take place in the coming days. Yet many analysts remain skeptical that the Islamic Republic would agree to concessions touching what it considers its core strategic principles. If diplomacy fails, the risk of war looms large.

To better understand the motivations behind Washington’s posture and what a conflict could mean for the region, RT spoke with three experts from Gulf states that could face Iranian retaliation.

US naval build-up and rising tensions

RT: What’s behind the intention of President Trump to launch a potential war on Iran?

Salman Al-Ansari, prominent Saudi geopolitical researcher: From Washington’s perspective, Iran has long been viewed as a destabilizing regional actor through its support for militias, its nuclear enrichment program, and its ballistic missile capabilities. President Trump holds a strong personal conviction about the fundamentally negative nature of the Iranian regime, reinforced by sustained Israeli lobbying that urges decisive action against Tehran.

At its core, Trump’s objectives can be summarized in three demands: dismantling Iran’s nuclear enrichment, dismantling its network of Iran-backed militias in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen, and dismantling its ballistic missile program. In contrast, Tehran’s strategy is far simpler: buying time. Time until Trump leaves office. Time to avoid irreversible concessions. Time to wait out political change in Washington.

Ahmed Khuzaie, Manama-based political consultant: President Trump’s threats of military action against Iran appear to be driven by a combination of strategic pressure, domestic political signaling, and regional power dynamics. 

His rhetoric has emphasized support for Iranian protesters facing regime crackdowns, while also warning Tehran that the US is “ready, willing and able” to act with overwhelming force if necessary. 

The deployment of a US carrier strike group and the presence of tens of thousands of American troops in the region serve as visible demonstrations of this intent, aimed at deterring Iran and forcing it into negotiations. However, the administration has not clearly defined its ultimate objective: whether it seeks regime change, deterrence, or simply leverage in talks, leaving the situation volatile and open to miscalculation.

The risks of such ambiguity are significant. Iran has vowed to retaliate immediately if attacked, raising the possibility of a wider regional conflict involving its proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. 

A military confrontation could destabilize global oil markets, disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and strain US relations with European allies who favor diplomacy over force. Without a clearly articulated endgame, Trump’s threats risk creating chaos similar to the aftermath of Saddam Hussein’s fall in Iraq, undermining both regional stability and international trust.

More....

California Is Shaking Again - Why The Next Big One Won't Just Stay In California

California Is Shaking Again - Why The Next Big One Won't Just Stay In California

 PNW STAFF

The West Coast is shaking again. In recent weeks, seismic activity along the Pacific Ring of Fire--particularly along California's coastline and inland fault systems--has intensified. What many hoped would be a brief period of tremors has instead become a steady drumbeat of geological reminders that California sits on borrowed time.

In the San Francisco Bay Area alone, hundreds of small earthquakes have been recorded in just days. While most are minor and barely felt, their cumulative effect is unsettling. Earthquakes, unlike hurricanes or wildfires, offer no warning. They arrive without sirens, without forecasts, without mercy. And scientists have been clear for decades: the Big One is not a question of if, but when.

To understand why this matters--far beyond California--we must look honestly at what different earthquake scenarios would actually mean.

A magnitude 6.0 to 6.9 earthquake, while considered "strong," would be survivable in many areas due to modern building codes. But survivable does not mean painless.

In this scenario, older buildings--particularly unreinforced masonry structures common in historic districts--would suffer severe damage. Power outages could last days. Gas lines would rupture, sparking fires similar to those that devastated San Francisco in 1906. Hospitals would be overwhelmed with injuries. Schools and workplaces would close indefinitely.

Economic losses would likely range from $50 to $150 billion, depending on the location. Insurance companies would strain, but the system would hold. Life would resume--but with scars.

A magnitude 7.5 to 7.9 earthquake along the San Andreas Fault is the scenario most seismologists quietly lose sleep over.

In this case, entire neighborhoods could be rendered uninhabitable within minutes. Bridges and overpasses would collapse. Major freeways--lifelines for commerce and emergency response--would be severed. Ports in Los Angeles and Oakland, critical arteries for global trade, could be shut down for months.

Estimates from past studies suggest thousands of deaths, tens of thousands of injuries, and economic losses exceeding $500 billion. Millions could be displaced overnight.

Communication networks would falter. Cell towers would go down. Internet service would be intermittent or unavailable. In an age where nearly everything--from banking to emergency alerts--depends on connectivity, this alone would amplify chaos.

Temporary shelters would fill immediately. Hotels would be destroyed or unsafe. Rent prices in surrounding states would skyrocket as refugees flee inland. California would not just face homelessness--it would export it.

A magnitude 8.0+ earthquake, though less frequent, remains within the realm of possibility. In this worst-case scenario, parts of California would resemble a war zone.

Water systems could fail entirely, leaving millions without clean drinking water. Fires could burn unchecked for days. Airports would close. Ports would be crippled. Entire regional economies would freeze.

The cost? Trillions of dollars. The humanitarian impact would rival major global disasters. Federal disaster relief would be stretched to its limits, forcing difficult decisions nationwide.

And that's when the story stops being "about California."

Why the Entire Nation Would Feel It

California is not just another state. If it were its own country, it would rank among the world's largest economies. It produces a massive share of U.S. agriculture, technology, entertainment, manufacturing, and international trade.

A major earthquake would immediately rattle financial markets. Stock exchanges would plunge. Supply chains already fragile from years of global instability would snap. Food prices would rise nationwide. Fuel costs would spike. Shipping delays would ripple across the economy.

At the same time, America's global posture would weaken. A nation struggling with a massive domestic humanitarian crisis is less able to project strength abroad. Adversaries would notice. Markets would notice. Allies would worry.

In short, the ground shaking in California would be felt in New York, Texas, Washington, and beyond.

Earthquakes are uniquely cruel disasters. They punish complacency. They do not care about political debates, budgets, or optimism. California has done much to prepare--but preparation does not equal immunity.

The recent surge in seismic activity may amount to nothing more than a geological reminder. Or it may be the prelude to something far larger. No one can say for certain.

But one thing is clear: when the earth moves, denial offers no shelter.

The question is not whether California will face another major earthquake. The question is whether we--as individuals, communities, and a nation--are willing to confront the consequences honestly before the ground forces us to.

Because when the shaking starts, it will already be too late to prepare. 

US downs Iranian drone flying toward aircraft carrier; PM to Witkoff: Iran can’t be trusted

US downs Iranian drone flying toward aircraft carrier; PM to Witkoff: Iran can’t be trusted

Agencies

ToI Staff

A US Navy fighter jet shot down an Iranian drone that was approaching the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea, US Central Command said Tuesday, in an incident that threatens to further ramp up tensions as the Trump administration warns of possible military action to get Iran to the negotiating table.

The drone “aggressively approached” the aircraft carrier with “unclear intent” and kept flying toward it “despite deescalatory measures taken by US forces operating in international waters,” Central Command spokesman Capt. Tim Hawkins said in a statement.

The shootdown occurred within hours of Iranian forces harassing a US-flagged and US-crewed merchant vessel that was sailing in the Strait of Hormuz, the American military said, and also came as Iran reportedly pushed to change the location and format of negotiations set to be held in Turkey on Friday.

The developments could escalate the heightened tensions between the longtime adversaries as President Donald Trump has threatened to use military action first over Iran’s bloody crackdown on nationwide protests and then to try to get the country to make a deal over its nuclear program, ballistic missiles and support for proxy groups. Trump’s Republican administration has built up military forces in the region, sending the aircraft carrier, guided-missile destroyers, air defense assets and more to supplement its presence.

The Shahed-139 drone was shot down by an F-35C fighter jet from the Lincoln, which was sailing about 500 miles (800 kilometers) from Iran’s southern coast, Hawkins said. No American troops were harmed, and no US equipment was damaged, the military’s statement noted.

Iranian state media reported that Iran’s paramilitary Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is investigating the “interruption” of the drone. Semi-official Tasnim news agency posted on its Telegram that before the footage cut out, the drone was able to successfully transfer the images it took back to Iran.

US says Iran also harassed a merchant vessel

After the shootdown, Revolutionary Guard forces harassed the merchant vessel Stena Imperative, the US military said. Two boats and an Iranian Mohajer drone approached the ship “at high speeds and threatened to board and seize the tanker,” Hawkins’ statement said.

The destroyer USS McFaul responded and escorted the Stena Imperative “with defensive air support from the US Air Force,” the statement said, adding that the merchant vessel was now sailing safely.

Talks between special envoy Steve Witkoff — who met Tuesday in Jerusalem with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — and Iranian officials are still planned, White House and Iranian officials said. A source familiar with the situation said earlier that Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner is also due to take part in the talks, with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi expected to head Tehran’s negotiating team.

Ahead of his expected meeting with Iranian officials later this week, Witkoff met with Netanyahu, who according to his office emphasized to Trump’s special envoy that “Iran has repeatedly proven it cannot be trusted to keep its promises.”

Netanyahu was joined for the meeting by the heads of Israel’s security services, the Prime Minister’s Office told The Times of Israel. Two Israeli officials confirmed the meeting was attended by Israel’s spy agency head David Barnea, Defense Minister Israel Katz, and IDF commander Eyal Zamir.

More...

US fighter jet downs Iranian drone near aircraft carrier, gunboats approach US-flagged tanker

US fighter jet downs Iranian drone near aircraft carrier, gunboats approach US-flagged tanker

REUTERS

The US military shot down an Iranian drone that approached the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea, an American official told Reuters on Tuesday.

The Iranian Shahed-139 drone was flying towards the carrier and was shot down by a F-35 US fighter jet.

"An F-35C fighter jet from Abraham Lincoln shot down the Iranian drone in self-defense and to protect the aircraft carrier and personnel on board," said Navy Captain Tim Hawkins, a spokesperson at the US military's Central Command.

No American service members were harmed during the incident, and no US equipment was damaged, he added.

The White House later praised CENTCOM's actions and affirmed that talks scheduled for Friday with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi were still on.

In a separate incident, six Iranian gunboats approached a US-flagged oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, north of Oman, according to maritime sources and a security consultancy.

US officials confirmed that armed Iranian boats attempted to stop the US-flagged ship, which was subsequently escorted to safety.

"Two IRGC boats and an Iranian Mohajer drone approached M/V Stena Imperative at high speeds and threatened to board and seize the tanker," Hawkins said.

The UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) stated it is investigating the incident, which occurred in the inbound Traffic Separation Scheme of the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranian gunboats attempted to contact the tanker via VHF radio, but the ship ignored their requests to stop and continued on its planned route.

Maritime security firm Vanguard Tech reported to its clients that six Iranian gunboats, equipped with 50 caliber guns, ordered the tanker to shut down its engines and prepare to be boarded. Instead, the vessel accelerated and was later escorted by a US warship, according to The Wall Street Journal. 

More...

Arms Control Deadlock: Why the World Can't Agree on a Successor to New START

Arms Control Deadlock: Why the World Can't Agree on a Successor to New START

SPUTNIK

The central factor behind the New START agreement’s looming February 5 demise is that the world is no longer bipolar, and nuclear powers big and small won’t tolerate restrictions on their arsenals unless those of their rivals are also reined in, prominent Russian military expert Alexander Mikhailov tells Sputnik.

On one hand, there’s China, whose ~500-600 warhead arsenal and nuclear triad capabilities were left untouched by New START in 2010, and whose inclusion into any new treaty the US has demanded.

“China proposed that Russia and the US reduce their capabilities to China’s level before dialogue, but neither are prepared to reduce their arsenals from 1,500 deployed warheads to hundreds,” Mikhailov explained.

“China does not want to be disadvantaged by limiting itself to the treaty’s framework while the leaders maintain significant numerical superiority. This creates a fundamental difficulty in the creation of a new document.”

Alternatives, such as freezing the arsenals of existing nuclear powers (Russia, China, US, and others) would require “complex diplomatic work.”

China, for example, would be “unlikely to agree to a trilateral treaty if its neighbors continue to develop their nuclear programs without any restrictions.”

A successor to New START could include simply extending the old provisions. But the lack of inspections (since 2020) and Russia’s suspension of participation in the treaty (2023) leaves even that prospect dim, Mikhailov says.

“Effectively, states are now free to act at their own discretion, increase the number of munitions and delivery vehicles,” with “the emergence of new weapons” (Burevestnik, Poseidon, new US missile defense systems) further complicating the situation.

Then there’s the factor of the British and French arsenals, which neither the US, nor London or Paris, want to be treated as part of a unified Western arsenal, notwithstanding the fact that “these countries are members of a single alliance (NATO) and are bound by obligations for collective defense.”

One potential “way out of the impasse could be to propose a uniform limit for all parties, for example, of 600 deployed warheads. This number is sufficient to ensure parity and mutually assured destruction, which could stabilize the collective security system for decades to come,” the observer summed up.