The Daily Populous Friday February 13rd, 2026 night edition
Authored by theatlantic.com and submitted by theatlantic

Sign up for Inside the Trump Presidency, a newsletter featuring coverage of the second Trump term.

Late last month, President Trump took to social media to issue a not-at-all-veiled threat to the theocratic rulers of Iran: Come to the negotiating table and agree to “NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS,” or risk the same type of swift and violent response that plucked Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife from Caracas in the middle of the night. “Time is running out, it is truly of the essence!”

Two weeks later, it suddenly isn’t. There is now “no rush” to make a deal, Trump said on Friday while speaking to reporters. Usually, threats of war come after talks fail, not before they have even started. But this time, the United States and Iran appear to have reset the clock just as the administration was at its most bellicose. So what happened?

The Trump administration had been considering its military options, which ranged from targeting leaders to hitting Iran’s nuclear program. But officials discovered that the U.S. could not conduct a major offensive as quickly as they had hoped without real risks to American forces, support from allies, and regional stability, two U.S. officials told us. Even though Trump has boasted about a “massive Armada” sprinting toward Iran, the U.S. does not have enough ships and planes in the region to conduct weeks of strikes, the officials said. It also does not have clear targets: The White House has yet to outline to military commanders what it would want to achieve through strikes, the officials said, suggesting that the use of force is not imminent.

Instead, the U.S. held direct talks with Iran over the weekend for the first time since last year. Admiral Brad Cooper, the top commander for Central Command, which is responsible for operations in the Middle East, was among the American officials present for the negotiations in Oman. The discussions allowed Iran to gauge U.S. interest in reaching a deal, a spokesperson for the country’s foreign ministry said. The Trump administration publicly expressed optimism. But one official involved told us that the United States walked away with questions about whether Iran was “serious about negotiations or simply pursuing this course to buy additional time.”

Beyond a reprieve from military action, Iran wants relief from economic sanctions, but without constraints on its regional militias and giving up its right to enrich uranium and its arsenal of ballistic missiles. Trump wants to eliminate any future potential for an Iranian nuclear facility that he said was “obliterated” during strikes in June, but that could still be revived.

The biggest unknown looming over the talks is how much patience the president has for negotiating before turning to strikes. Trump said on Tuesday that the U.S. will “have to do something very tough” if a deal is not reached soon.

Trump’s latest threats against Iran began last month, near the height of protests inside the country, when it appeared that the regime could fall and U.S. military strikes could finish it off. Since then, the Iranian government has cracked down on protesters, killing thousands and arresting political figures who have promoted reforms. The country is the weakest it has been in decades: Its economy is in a downward spiral, and its proxies, particularly in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, are stretched thin, making asserting power across the region more difficult.

But just because a regime is fragile politically doesn’t mean it is weak militarily. A strike against Iran would be a daunting, complex operation for the U.S. military, defense officials told us. The brutality with which the Iranian government quashed protests suggests that it is not in immediate danger of falling, and the nation’s security apparatus (notably its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) did not defect or fracture during the uprisings. The country has long-range ballistic missiles that can reach every corner of the Middle East and hundreds of cruise missiles and drones that could easily strike countries in the Gulf. These assets remain functional after the U.S. bombed the Fordow nuclear site and Israel damaged air defenses over the summer.

Read: What are the chances Trump attacks Iran?

An operation aimed at regime change or the weakening of Iran’s nuclear program would be “highly complex because of Iran’s capabilities,” one official told us. Iran would respond, the official said, potentially striking U.S. forces and allies.

The operation would also be difficult to sustain. The “Armada” that Trump said is moving with “great power, enthusiasm, and purpose” is insufficient to mount a major weekslong offensive, the officials told us, and does not include the needed air defenses. The United States has enough military assets in the region to conduct a narrow mission over several days—one that could, for instance, involve targeted strikes on key Iranian leaders or military assets. The Pentagon referred questions about the need for more military firepower in the region to the White House. The White House reiterated Trump’s view that the Iranian regime must abandon its nuclear program and “make a deal.”

The U.S. strikes against Iran over the summer—a more limited operation than what Trump is now signaling—originated from two aircraft carriers in the region. A larger offensive would require at least two carriers that could bring in enough planes to, for example, strike many of Iran’s ballistic-missile launchers. (Only one carrier strike group, the USS Abraham Lincoln, is currently in the region.) On Tuesday, Trump told Axios that he was considering deploying a second carrier. Doing so would require one of the Navy’s existing carrier crews to cut their preparation or rest time. Getting the carrier there—the USS George H. W. Bush is next in line—would take at least two weeks.

If Iran’s ultimate goal is to preserve its regime, compromises on its nuclear program and regional proxies will be needed, defense officials told us. Trump met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for more than two hours yesterday. Netanyahu has been clear that he worries that any negotiation will give Iran too much leeway. “There was nothing definitive reached other than I insisted that negotiations with Iran continue to see whether or not a Deal can be consummated,” Trump posted on Truth Social after the meeting with Netanyahu.

Read: The U.S. military can’t do everything at once

Israel would likely support the U.S. in targeting Iran, officials told us, but the rest of the region is eager to avoid hostilities. Officials from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—neither of which is at all sympathetic to Iran—told administration officials that they do not want to be involved in and would not support a regional conflict, according to Arab and U.S. officials. Countries hosting U.S. military bases—specifically Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain—are particularly vulnerable because Iran has warned that it could retaliate against those bases. Any military action could shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a transit point for roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil exports. Some countries fear that military action could rattle investors’ confidence in a region that relies heavily on direct foreign investment. Gulf allies also fear catastrophic outcomes, such as radiation exposure resulting from strikes on nuclear facilities or cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. Iran’s opposition, meanwhile, is disorganized and has little common vision for the country’s future beyond a desire to get rid of the clerics.

Without regional support, the United States risks entering into a war without a coalition that would reinforce its military might. But there’s also a risk in continuing to delay. Vali Nasr, a professor of international affairs and Middle East studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, told us that by putting military action on the table and then not seeing it through, “Trump has instead alerted Iran of potential war and given them time to prepare.” Every day that U.S. forces are in the region without acting, they give Iran more of a chance to get ready.

ohaiihavecats on February 12nd, 2026 at 18:19 UTC »

My guess is that this has more to do with the Gulf monarchies (particularly UAE and Saudi Arabia) than anything else. At present, they're in a period of detente with Iran, and the events of the last few years have left Iran in an unprecedentedly-weak geopolitical situation. That puts Iran in a very nice sweet spot for them: a weak, predictable adversary they can negotiate with, similar to the previous relationship between Israel and Assadist Syria.

Serious American strikes on Iran could upend all of that. Even with the questionable record of Iran's missile and drone strike capabilities in recent events, Iran still has the capability to close the Straight of Hormuz with mines and other anti-shipping weaponry--a disastrous situation for the Gulf monarchies. A destabilized Iran is also a no-win situation for the Gulf monarchies; that would likely mean a massive civil war and/or some flavor of a secular liberal revolution right on their doorstep, and neither of those would be a welcome outcome for the local thrones. It's not exactly hard for them to get their wishes across to Trump, either, through the sort of palace-to-palace favor trading diplomacy they've engaged in with him for years.

DaySecure7642 on February 12nd, 2026 at 15:15 UTC »

Iran even after crippled last year is way stronger than Venezuela. Needs to be very careful and assure the retributions can be mitigated.

theatlantic on February 12nd, 2026 at 14:50 UTC »

Nancy A. Youssef and Vivian Salama: “Late last month, President Trump took to social media to issue a not-at-all-veiled threat to the theocratic rulers of Iran: Come to the negotiating table and agree to ‘NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS,’ or risk the same type of swift and violent response that plucked Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife from Caracas in the middle of the night. ‘Time is running out, it is truly of the essence!’

“Two weeks later, it suddenly isn’t. There is now ‘no rush’ to make a deal, Trump said on Friday while speaking to reporters. Usually, threats of war come after talks fail, not before they have even started. But this time, the United States and Iran appear to have reset the clock just as the administration was at its most bellicose. So what happened?

“The Trump administration had been considering its military options, which ranged from targeting leaders to hitting Iran’s nuclear program. But officials discovered that the U.S. could not conduct a major offensive as quickly as they had hoped without real risks to American forces, support from allies, and regional stability, two U.S. officials told us. Even though Trump has boasted about a ‘massive Armada’ sprinting toward Iran, the U.S. does not have enough ships and planes in the region to conduct weeks of strikes, the officials said. It also does not have clear targets: The White House has yet to outline to military commanders what it would want to achieve through strikes, the officials said, suggesting that the use of force is not imminent.

“Instead, the U.S. held direct talks with Iran over the weekend for the first time since last year. Admiral Brad Cooper, the top commander for Central Command, which is responsible for operations in the Middle East, was among the American officials present for the negotiations in Oman. The discussions allowed Iran to gauge U.S. interest in reaching a deal, a spokesperson for the country’s foreign ministry said. The Trump administration publicly expressed optimism. But one official involved told us that the United States walked away with questions about whether Iran was ‘serious about negotiations or simply pursuing this course to buy additional time.’”

Read more: https://theatln.tc/o6RklfVl