Military Experts: Massive US Force Buildup Signals Potential Iran Campaign

Military analysts say the United States has assembled its largest Middle East force presence since 2003, suggesting preparations for an extended military campaign against Iran. The buildup includes four carrier strike groups and elevated readiness levels across the region, with experts predicting any action could last weeks rather than days.

Military experts are warning that the United States has positioned its most substantial force deployment in the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq invasion, indicating potential preparations for an extended military operation against Iran that could span multiple weeks.

Former British Army commander Col. Richard Kemp spoke with The Media Line about the unprecedented scale of American military assets now concentrated in the region. “As I understand it, this is the biggest military buildup in the Middle East since 2003,” Kemp stated. He emphasized that the current force level exceeds what was deployed during last June’s 12-day conflict in 2025, describing it as “very significant military power.”

Washington has been using the term “imminent” for weeks regarding potential action, though specific timelines remain undefined. The military positioning could lead to rapid developments or extend over a longer period, according to Kemp, who focused on the strategic implications rather than political rhetoric.

“I think it’s likely there will be a military strike, but I don’t think you’d say it’s inevitable,” he explained. “I think it’s very likely.”

The comparison to 2003 reflects more than mere emphasis, as the current military footprint has expanded dramatically in recent weeks. Four American carrier strike groups are now either stationed in or heading toward the broader Middle East region, fundamentally altering the strategic balance. Approximately twelve guided-missile destroyers are positioned throughout surrounding waters, with some near the Strait of Hormuz and others operating closer to the Red Sea.

The United States maintained a substantial regional presence even before this buildup, with over 40,000 personnel stationed at military installations and aboard naval vessels. The arrival of the latest carrier group adds several thousand additional service members to this total.

Aviation assets have also been repositioned significantly. Long-range B-52 bombers and B-2 stealth aircraft have been placed on heightened alert status. Additional fighter aircraft, including F-16s, F-22s, and F-35s, have been moved to forward positions. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar has raised its alert levels, with these adjustments reflecting both offensive capabilities and defensive preparations for potential retaliation.

The concentration of forces makes it difficult to characterize the deployment as routine military positioning.

The June 2025 conflict, which commenced on June 13 and lasted 12 days, had clearly defined military objectives. Kemp described that engagement as primarily targeting Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities and nuclear infrastructure. Israel conducted most of that campaign, focusing on air defense systems and missile-related facilities, with American forces joining near the conclusion. While intense, the fighting remained limited in scope and was not designed to topple the Iranian government.

Kemp suggested that President Donald Trump would prefer achieving concessions from Tehran without engaging in full-scale warfare. “I think he would prefer Iran to buckle under the military pressure that’s been building up around them and make significant concessions, particularly on the nuclear program, but also on ballistic missiles and potentially on sponsoring terrorist proxies in the region as well,” he said. “He would like to be able to stand up and say, ‘I have resolved this through negotiations rather than through military force.'”

However, Kemp expressed skepticism about Iran’s willingness to offer genuine, lasting concessions. “Nothing that Iran agrees to or says can be trusted,” he stated. “They’ll just use it as a tactic to buy time for themselves.”

Should diplomatic efforts fail, the currently deployed forces suggest preparation for operations extending beyond limited strikes intended as warnings. Kemp outlined two distinct aspects of the military buildup: offensive capabilities and protection of American personnel and regional allies.

“One is what you need to actually damage Iran, bring down the regime, destroy the key components in Iran that are used offensively against other countries in the Middle East, of course, Israel particularly,” he explained. “The second element is defensive.”

American forces positioned throughout the Gulf region, including those in Qatar, would face exposure to Iranian missiles and allied militias during military operations. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates would need to assess their own vulnerabilities. Israel would almost certainly become a primary target for retaliation. Kemp noted that protecting “such a wide range of targets” demands substantial resources, including aircraft, naval vessels, layered missile defense systems, and regional coordination.

Kemp also raised the possibility of preemptive or simultaneous action against Iranian proxy forces. While Hezbollah in Lebanon has been significantly weakened since last year, he said, the organization retains missile launch capabilities against Israel. Yemen’s Houthis continue to possess long-range attack capabilities. “They would have to be dealt with either before a US strike in Iran, or at the same time,” he said. “We’re talking about a much more intensive attack.”

The question of operational duration remains central to understanding potential scenarios. Would a new confrontation follow the compressed timeline of June 2025, or evolve into something more prolonged?

“I would say much longer than a couple of days,” Kemp predicted. “It could run into weeks. It could well be a fairly long, sustained bombing campaign against Iran.”

He stressed that military planners would continuously evaluate results throughout any campaign. While objectives would be established beforehand, the operation’s length would depend on whether those goals were being achieved. “They won’t probably know now how long it’s going to last,” he said. “It depends on the effect.”

Brig. Gen. Amir Avivi, founder of the Israel Defense and Security Forum, presented the situation in more dramatic terms when speaking with The Media Line, stating that strategic discussions have moved beyond targeting nuclear facilities.

“The objective of the 12-day war was to destroy their nuclear capability and stop the rapid buildup with ballistic missiles,” Avivi explained. “Now we are talking about taking down the regime. It is something completely different.”

According to Avivi, Tehran misinterpreted the aftermath of June 2025. Rather than reducing tensions, he said, Iran continued investing resources in missile development and maintaining its regional proxy network, despite domestic economic difficulties. “There is no way to stop this threat and the instability in the Middle East without dismantling this regime,” he argued.

Avivi suggested that under optimal conditions, including precise intelligence and rapid targeting of command structures, the regime could be overthrown within weeks. “I think in two weeks it could be done,” he said, while acknowledging that success would heavily depend on internal Iranian dynamics.

He argued that the crucial variable extends beyond military hardware to include the Iranian population itself. Iran faces economic pressures, he said, and public dissatisfaction persists. Should external military action coincide with renewed domestic unrest, the regime would confront simultaneous internal and external challenges.

Kemp, while more cautious, also indicated that leadership targets would likely be central if objectives extend to regime change. “If the objective is to topple the regime, then one of the primary targets has to be the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps],” he said.

He did not dismiss unconventional approaches. “I wouldn’t be surprised if we see troops on the ground,” Kemp said. “I don’t mean large scale. I’m talking about special forces commandos, maybe, to directly take out the Ayatollah and some of the other leadership. I don’t think we should exclude the possibility of that happening, as well as the air campaign.”

Avivi dismissed the notion that a regime-focused campaign would necessarily require substantial foreign ground forces. If there are “boots on the ground,” he said, they would not be American or Israeli troops.

“The boots on the ground are the Iranian people,” he stated.

In his assessment, sustained external military pressure could combine with growing internal frustration. Economic hardship, infrastructure shortages, and political repression have undermined confidence in the leadership, he argued. If the regime’s military foundation weakens, domestic unrest could complete the process.

“You need to eliminate the leadership,” he said. “You need to break their military capability completely.”

When asked about proxy escalation, Avivi said the probability is “very high” if Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other aligned groups view the confrontation as existential. He added that recent conversations with senior Israeli military leadership revealed a sense of preparedness and heightened alertness. “There is no 100%,” he said, acknowledging that ballistic missiles would likely strike Israel and create serious challenges.

The distinction from June 13, 2025, therefore involves not only the scale of American military equipment now visible in the region, but also the objectives being discussed by those analyzing the situation.

“The primary target,” Kemp said, “is going to be the leadership and the effort to try and bring the regime down.”

Whether this objective can be accomplished primarily through air operations, requires limited ground operations, or results in stability or prolonged chaos remains unclear. What appears more certain, in their analysis, is that the current military posture is not intended for symbolic purposes.

“It’s needed in order to sufficiently damage the regime,” Kemp concluded. “Not a token strike.”