Talks continue between Iran, the US, and the various mediators hoping to avert military action as the weekend approaches. Thus far, Iran still thinks it can get a new JCPOA, while Donald Trump still thinks he can force them to deal rationally. Both sides appear ready to be disappointed, at the very least.
Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi insisted that the regime's nuclear program will survive both the strikes in June and the coming reckoning from the US armada assembling in the Persian Gulf. Araghchi did offer yet another deal in which Iran just postpones the inevitable:
Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi: There is no military solution for Iran's nuclear program. That was tested last year... they couldn't kill our nuclear program. pic.twitter.com/SScACmxobw
— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) February 20, 2026
JUST IN 🔴
— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) February 20, 2026
Iran’s foreign minister signaled that a 3 to 5 year pause in uranium enrichment could be considered as part of a potential deal with U.S.
He suggests that the U.S. is considering this.
Take what he says with caution. pic.twitter.com/96LKwevHYC
In other words, Araghchi offers only a restoration of Barack Obama's 2015 Iran deal, presumably without the pallet of cash. In fact, this isn't even the JCPOA, which limited enrichment for ten years. At that time, Trump ripped Obama for that executive agreement – never a treaty – for its tacit approval for Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons as well as leaving out ballistic missiles and Iran's support for terror proxy armies.
As for caution, consider the source:
Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi:
— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) February 20, 2026
“We don't consider Americans as our enemy.” pic.twitter.com/7yRrYTsI25
Ahem. Isn't this the regime that made "Death to America" and "Death to the Great Satan" its mottos for the past 47 years? Araghchi's claim is nonsense on stilts, and not just because the regime started off its foreign policy by abducting and hostaging American diplomats for 444 days. The regime's radical Islamist theocrats want to destroy America and its allies as a means to taking over the world, quite literally. They have spent the last 47 years targeting Americans and American interests to pursue that policy. How Joe Scarborough managed to keep a straight face is beyond me.
If the Iranians remain locked in a JCPOA fantasy, Trump may be stuck in some misapprehensions of his own. The Wall Street Journal reports that the White House is now considering a limited opening strike, perhaps to push the Iranians into concessions on ballistic missiles and terror proxies. That strategy has its own problems:
President Trump is weighing an initial limited military strike on Iran to force it to meet his demands for a nuclear deal, a first step that would be designed to pressure Tehran into an agreement but fall short of a full-scale attack that could inspire a major retaliation.
The opening assault, which if authorized could come within days, would target a few military or government sites, people familiar with the matter said. If Iran still refused to comply with Trump’s directive to end its nuclear enrichment, the U.S. would respond with a broad campaign against regime facilities—potentially aimed at toppling the Tehran regime.
The first limited-strike option, which hasn’t been previously reported, signals Trump might be open to using military force not only as a reprimand for Iran’s failure to make a deal, but also to pave the way for a U.S.-friendly accord. One of the people said Trump could ratchet up his attacks, starting small before ordering larger strikes until the Iranian regime either dismantles its nuclear work or falls.
The problem with this scenario is that it doesn't address the main risk of military action: the ballistic missiles. In fact, this sounds as though the first strike wouldn't target those launchers at all, which would allow Iran a full-spectrum ballistic missile response across all targets the regime has already chosen. The US, Israel, and allies could parry that first attack, but we would use up a lot of ABM resources in doing so, leaving us more vulnerable on subsequent waves.
The rational order of battle should be the opposite. First, take out the anti-aircraft and radar systems in Iran with stealth bombers and fighters, and immediately after start going after the launchers on a massive first wave. We wouldn't get all of them or even most of them the first time, but we'd take out some of them, and launchers are the IRGC's weak spot. They have plenty of missiles, but only a finite number of launchers and no effective air cover to protect them. The more we take out up front, the fewer ABM resources we will have to expend from the start.
This strategy might have been necessary a few weeks ago when Trump first declared his "red line" on protester massacres, given the relative lack of resources in the region at the time. That's not the case now, however:
The U.S. military has deployed scores of combat aircraft across the Middle East and will soon have a second aircraft carrier within range of Iran if President Trump gives the order to strike. Over the past month, dozens of jet fighters and support aircraft have flown from the U.S. and Europe to bases in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, according to flight-tracking data.
For decades, the U.S. military has located warplanes at bases throughout the Middle East that have served as launching points for conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen. However, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates won’t allow the U.S. aircraft to use their respective airspace to strike Iran. That has prompted the U.S. to base many fighters farther away in Jordan, which means warplanes would need to rely more on aerial refueling to reach their targets and return to the bases.
The U.S. has deployed F-22s and F-35s, whose stealthy designs allow them to evade being targeted by surface-to-air missiles. These same jet fighters escorted B-2 stealth bombers when Trump ordered military strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites in June 2025.
EA-18G jamming aircraft would likely be used to disrupt Iran’s missile launchers, as they were last month during the U.S. mission to capture former Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. After a strike on Iran, F-15E and F-16 fighters would likely be used to intercept Iranian drones launched in response at Israel or bases with a U.S. military presence in the region.
Even though they are not based in the region, long-range bombers, including the B-2, could launch from the U.S. and fly nonstop missions over Iran with the help of aerial tankers.
Iran's regime sees this too and knows the implications. They may change their tune in the next few hours and start making serious offers to avoid a conflict they know they will lose, especially after the humiliation of the Twelve Day War. If so, then Trump can think about de-escalation matched to verification. However, any military action at this point has to address the main threats from the regime, and those are on mobile launchers and fixed pads, not office buildings in Tehran.
Editor’s Note: Thanks to President Trump and his administration’s bold leadership, we are respected on the world stage, and our enemies are being put on notice.
Help us continue to report on the administration’s peace through strength foreign policy and its successes. Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member