As the United States intensifies its military operations in the Middle East, Iran has issued warnings of a robust counteraction should an attack occur.

Nevertheless, some analysts suggest the regime is at its “weakest,” casting doubt on its ability to effectively retaliate.

U.S. President Donald Trump has cautioned that Iran faces dwindling time to engage in nuclear negotiations to avert American military intervention.

Referencing the United States’ offensive on Iran’s nuclear sites last June, Trump posted on TruthSocial, stating, “the next attack will be far worse! Don’t let that happen again,” and announced a “massive armada” approaching Iran.

Reacting to these developments, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi declared on X that Iran’s military forces are “prepared — with their fingers on the trigger — to immediately and forcefully answer any aggression.”

“Iran has always welcomed a mutually beneficial, fair and equitable nuclear deal — on equal footing, and free from coercion, threats, and intimidation — which ensures Iran’s rights to peaceful nuclear technology, and guarantees no nuclear weapons.”

Why is the US increasing its military presence?

Trump said the US naval force headed by the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln was approaching Iran, as the US military announced plans for a “multi-day readiness exercise” in the region.

US Central Command announced on social media that its Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle is operating in the Middle East, highlighting that the fighter jet “enhances combat readiness and promotes regional security and stability”.

David Smith, associate professor at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, told SBS News that we are seeing “a military buildup that is designed to threaten and intimidate the Iranian regime”.

The warships started moving from the Asia-Pacific region last week, when the tensions between the countries soared after a deadly crackdown on protests across Iran.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to intervene if Iran continues to kill protesters, saying “help is on the way”.

Malcolm Davis, senior analyst in defence Strategy at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, told SBS News: “I think the US recognises that, firstly, from a moral perspective, they can’t allow this continual massacring of protestors to continue.”

Smith said: “There are a lot of people in the Trump administration who think that the Iranian regime might fall.

“They [the US] are receiving intelligence reports saying that the regime now is the weakest that it has been since the Iranian revolution.

“The problem for the United States is that with a regime like Iran, which is very authoritarian, which has a very tight control over information, it’s really very difficult for outsiders to be able to tell how strong or how weak that regime is.”

Iran’s recent anti-regime protests were triggered over a month ago by shopkeepers demonstrating over the country’s ongoing economic crisis. Since then, the protests have slowed down.

The US-based Human Rights Activist News Agency (HRANA) has confirmed that at least 6,373 people, including 214 from government-affiliated forces, were killed during the protests.

‘Opportunity for the US’

Davis said the US might also have another intent behind increasing its military presence in the region.

“… there’s an opportunity for the US and its allies to remove the regime from power. If that were successful, then that would have a huge beneficial effect on security and stability in the Middle East.

“You are seeing, I think, sort of like a moment of opportunity for the Americans to remove this regime and potentially create the situation where a new government comes to power that is much more friendly to the West.”

Regime-change arguments are deeply disputed. Supporters say it could stabilise the region, while critics warn it risks escalation. Such a move could also amount to a violation of international law.

Trump has not explicitly said he is seeking regime change in Iran, but recently, the country’s UN envoy said the US president’s rhetoric was part of “a broader regime-change policy”.

On the other hand, Smith said that the last round of protests in Iran showed that “the regime was strong enough and it was repressive enough and it was determined enough to hold on”.

“The elites in the regime didn’t splinter. They remained unified and didn’t give in to the demands of the protests. They just met protests with more and more repression.

“But at the same time, regimes can look very strong right up until the moment that they fall.”

Earlier on Wednesday, US secretary of state Marco Rubio told a congressional committee that the Iranian regime is probably weaker than ever before, its economy is in collapse, and predicted that street protests would flare up again.

Smith said: “There are a lot of people in the Trump administration who think that the Iranian regime might fall.”

“The problem for the United States is that with a regime like Iran, which is very authoritarian, which has a very tight control over information, it’s really very difficult for outsiders to be able to tell how strong or how weak that regime is.”

Does Iran have the power to fire back?

Iranian officials have threatened to respond to any potential military action from the US.

Dara Conduit, a political science lecturer at Melbourne University, said that “the Iranian regime is increasingly being backed into a corner, which is a really dangerous place for it to be”.

“Previously, over the last couple of years, when we’ve seen it respond, it has responded in a way that is largely tokenistic, which has not caused significant damage to the US interests. But it would depend on what happens.”

Ali Shamkhani, an adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said in a post on X that any military action from the United States will result in Iran targeting the US, Israel and those who support it.

Davis said that Iran’s response to a possible US attack might include Iran launching “long-range missiles against US bases in the region, but also against Israel”.

“Potentially, they could do some damage, but they’re not very well placed to do a great deal of damage,” he said.

“I think that Iranian’s threats of response are probably pretty empty.”

In 2020, after the US killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in an attack ordered by Trump, Iran responded by firing ballistic missiles at the Al Asad Airbase in Iraq, where American personnel were stationed.

In June 2025, after US strikes on nuclear facilities during Israel’s 12-day conflict with Iran, Iran responded by launching missiles at a US airbase in Qatar.

Smith said: “American intelligence thinks that this time around the response would would probably, would probably not be any more serious than it was last time, but they are clearly still worried.”

He said that while Iran’s proxies have been weakened in the past years, “all of the focus is on Iraq, which is perhaps the one area where Iran’s proxies have not been militarily weakened in the same way”.

In recent days, Trump has warned Iraq that the US will not support the country if former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki returns to power.

Al-Maliki was prime minister of Iraq from 2006 to 2014, when he stepped down. However, following elections in November, al-Maliki has been nominated as the country’s leader by an alliance of Shiite parties that holds the parliamentary majority.

Al-Maliki is viewed by the US adminstration as being close to Iran.

“That reflects that they are a little bit worried about this, as this is the place where they’d be most worried about Iranian retaliation on American troops,” Smith said.

Is a US-Iran deal still possible?

While the US and Iran have threatened each other with potential attacks, they have also discussed a potential deal around Iran’s nuclear capabilities — the reason for the Israel-Iran conflict in June 2025.

Conduit said while a lot has happened over recent years: “the nuclear issue remains unresolved”.

“Iran has been, has suggested that it’s willing to negotiate on the nuclear issue. The problem is that Iran was actively negotiating on the nuclear issue last year in June when Israel struck and when the US ultimately bombed its nuclear facilities,” she said.

“While I think there is a desire in Iran to negotiate. Donald Trump has shown himself over the course of nearly a decade now to not be a good-faith negotiating partner.

“Iran has demonstrated a willingness to negotiate, but it has also enriched uranium beyond its legal requirements. It has not been open to inspections as it should have been. So Iran hasn’t been a model partner either.”

The Trump administration has long been asking for Iran to stop its uranium enrichment, while the Iranian regime has not accepted this request, saying it is not planning to develop a nuclear weapon.

“I have no doubt [the US increase in military presence] is an effort to add pressure to the Iranian regime to try to force it to capitulate on the nuclear issue,” Conduit said.

Smith said Iran would also “certainly prefer to be involved in negotiations rather than to be facing the prospect of an American attack”.

“But there’s a difference between being willing to be involved in negotiations and actually being able to negotiate a deal.

“Certainly being involved in negotiations might be very valuable for the Iranian regime at the moment, but reaching a deal may not be.”

Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Baqher Ghalibaf said on Thursday Iran is ready to negotiate only if the US is “honest and real”.

---

For the latest from SBS News, download our app and subscribe to our newsletter.