I’ve watched the images of two American aircraft carriers moving toward the Middle East and I don’t feel reassured.
I feel uneasy.
Let me say something clearly before anyone tries to misrepresent this: I despise the Iranian regime. I despise what it does to its own people. I despise its repression of women, its crushing of dissent, its morality police, its execution of protesters, its export of proxy militias, and its cynical use of religion to entrench power. The Iranian people deserve better than the system that rules them.
But despising a regime does not mean losing the ability to think strategically.
The USS Abraham Lincoln is already operating in the Arabian Sea. The USS Gerald R. Ford, the most advanced aircraft carrier ever built, has been ordered into the region. These are 100,000-ton warships, roughly 1,100 feet long, carrying more than 4,500 people each. Floating cities. Human beings. Sailors with families.
They are symbols of American power. Symbols can become targets.
Iran is not Iraq in 2003. It is not Libya. It is not Syria. This is a regime that survived eight years of total war against Saddam Hussein. During the Iran–Iraq War, hundreds of thousands died. Cities burned. Chemical weapons were used. And still, the state endured.
For 47 years, the Islamic Republic has prepared for confrontation with the United States. That is not hyperbole it is embedded in its military doctrine and national identity.
Now place two aircraft carriers within reach of its missile forces, near the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway barely 33 kilometres wide at its narrowest point. One of the most militarised chokepoints on earth.
Iran possesses medium-range ballistic missiles such as the Shahab-3, with a range of roughly 1,300 kilometres. It fields the Khorramshahr, assessed at up to around 2,000 kilometres. It has unveiled the Fattah-1, described by Tehran as hypersonic, with a claimed range of about 1,400 kilometres. It deploys anti-ship cruise missiles. It manufactures Shahed-136 drones designed for saturation attacks,launched in waves, intended to overwhelm.
And the arithmetic is sobering. A single THAAD interceptor costs in the region of $12–13 million. Patriot PAC-3 interceptors cost several million dollars each. If waves of drones and ballistic missiles arrive together, defenders are forced to fire again and again.
Iran does not need to win outright. It needs one moment.
One successful strike. One image of fire on the deck of a 100,000-ton carrier. One broadcast that shatters the perception of invulnerability.
We saw how Russia’s aura of military supremacy cracked in Ukraine. Prestige is power. Once punctured, it changes global psychology overnight.
And China would be watching closely!
Beijing has invested heavily in systems designed to challenge US naval dominance. The DF-17, a missile carrying a hypersonic glide vehicle, is assessed in open sources to have a range of roughly 1,800 to 2,500 kilometres. Its glide vehicle manoeuvres at high speed in the atmosphere, complicating interception. China is also associated with anti-ship ballistic missile programmes such as the DF-21D and DF-26 often described in defence circles as “carrier killers.”
Whether China has transferred anything to Iran is not confirmed publicly. But the broader point stands: a conflict in the Gulf becomes a stress test of American naval survivability. The implications would not stop in the Middle East. They would echo in Taiwan.
What unsettles me further is the rhetoric.
Lindsey Graham saying the Saudis and the Middle East need to “suck it up.” Pete Hegseth speaking as if confrontation is inevitable. Marco Rubio framing escalation as moral destiny.
This is not quiet strength. It is political theatre with real-world consequences.
Clausewitz wrote that war is the continuation of policy by other means. If the policy is driven by bravado, then the war that follows will be chaotic.
Britain must think for itself. Charles de Gaulle warned against blind reliance on American protection. When we provide facilities such as Diego Garcia, when we align automatically, we risk becoming part of the theatre. And if Tehran feels cornered, it will not draw neat legal distinctions.
Cornered regimes escalate because they believe they have nothing left to lose.
Even air superiority does not guarantee safety. During Operation Desert Storm, coalition forces struggled to eliminate Iraqi Scud launchers despite overwhelming dominance. Iran’s mountainous terrain and hardened sites make missile suppression far more complex than many assume.
South Asia is tense. The Indo-Pacific is fragile. North Korea feels vindicated in its deterrence doctrine.
This is how spirals begin.
I despise the Iranian regime.
But I fear reckless escalation more.
Two aircraft carriers near Iran may look decisive.
If one is struck, the consequences will not be confined to the Gulf. They will ripple across continents.
And history will not care who sounded toughest on television.
It will only record who miscalculated.
* Mo Waqas is a vice chair of the Liberal Democrats' Racial Diversity Campaign and was the PPC for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Tom Bailey
Daniel Walker
Matt (Bristol)
Hywel
15 Comments
Mo, I fear you are right. The Americans have chosen not to have thought through their strategy.
It may be a long time ago, but Field Marshal Alanbrook had much the same criticism of the US during the second world war. Being gung-ho isn’t sensible or mature.
Mo, you are right. Iran, where I was mobbed in 1962 as I being American, has deep historic hate of the US since their ousting of Mohammad Mossadegh. It is a very proud nation as shown in their fight against Iraq. Their president Masoud Pezeshkian was elected Reformist candidate against the Ayatollah’s candidate promising to rebuild relationships with the west. He was approved by the Majles, the Iranian parliament. He opposed the recent massacres. His Foreign Minister is leading the negotiations with the US. I believe a successful outcome of these would be the only desirable alternative to the war which Trump is threatening.
Mo, okay but what are you suggesting should happen, the Iranian situation has gone on for years and years, maybe the bullet has to be bitten, otherwise we will be played again.
Just saying.
@ theakes,
“but what are you suggesting should happen?”
I’d say nothing should. Previous interventions in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East have largely been counterproductive in the longer term.
It’s unlikely the next one, if it happens, will be any different.
I don’t support this mooted US action, because it doesn’t seem to income any plan to bring democracy and stability to Iran.
But the US won’t be sailing those aircraft carriers into the Straight of Hormuz. They’ll keep them well out of Iranian missile range and use air-to-air refuelling to give their aircraft the range to strike Iran.
*involve, not income…
We have to do something, ideally regime change
I share Mo’s concern because the Iranian regime holds such strong religiously motivated beliefs in its own absolute rights it could do anything in an outright war even if that led to its own death, just like Islamist suicide bombers and the consequences so terrible for so many other people. Then we do not know who would be strong enought to replace them; maybe eventually the Islamist groups and hence the people of Iran would be no better off.
Your missile ranges are interesting. Why do you think the USS Gerald R. Ford has entered the Mediterranean some 1400km to Abadan and 1800km to Tehran.
Is because it is quicker to get there from the Caribbean or because it can help protect Israel? In the 12-day war both aircraft carriers were in the Arabian Sea.
It’s all a bit late really. If either carrier withdraws it will encourage Iran to further stir up the Middle East. It also seems to me strange that many people on this thread want to change the world but don’t want to do anything to change the world.
Late Monday, the Guardian confirmed my suspicion: ‘The carrier, which was moving south of Italy on Sunday en route toward Israel.’ On April 17 last year the US announced development of a new anti-ballistic interceptor ready in 2017 following the success of Iranian penetration of Israel’s Iron Dome.
The Guardian article also agreed with my first comment: ‘Donald Trump’s decision to order airstrikes against Iran will hinge in part on the judgment of Trump’s special envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.’
While it’s interesting to quote the cost of missiles, we should remember the cost of an aircraft carriers is much greater – the Gerald R Ford cost $12.8 billion dollars to build plus another $4.7 billion dollars in research and development costs. Yes, that billions rather than millions! Of course they are well defended, but a single lucky strike by the Iranians would cost the US Navy that amount – not forgetting the 4,500 servicemen aboard.
Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket! America is building another nine sisterships of the Gerald R Ford Class, at even greater cost per ship. And Trump has just ordered construction of a new class of “super battleships” which will cost at least $30 billion each at today’s prices. Powerful ships certainly – but a single loss would be catastrophic. What a modern navy actually requires is quantity rather than just quality! China (which incidentally has recently overtaken the United States in the size of its navy – and the gap is widening) has recognised this and has concentrated on a greater number of hulls for its Blue Water Navy – i.e. individual ocean-going combatant warships.
This is how this war ends.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2026/02/karen-kwiatkowski/the-sound-of-a-collapsing-empire/
When you have (average 22 year old marines), than havent been home to their families for 220 days, and the ship toilets dont flush, its only a matter of time before the USA goes home.
Hearing what the Iranians are saying has not been a priority for Western media.
PLEASE play the fascinating video from an Iranian.
https://www.aljazeera.com/video/the-take-2/2026/2/27/aje-onl-irn_genevatalks2026_av_v2-260226
So, now the US and Israel IS at war with Iran (even if that is not ‘legally’ the situation??), what is their plan? Not seriously expecting them to reveal it, but the weight of experience with all such interventions in the Middle East suggest there is no ‘game plan’ for ‘regime change’. Interesting that the Turkish government has condemned both the US/ Israeli attack and the Iranian response. Can our party leadership do more than simply do the same? Some serious public questioning from our spokespeople please about how the Americans intend to ensure the regime is changed to a more humanitarian one without mass bloodshed?