- February 21, 2026
- 5:09 pm
- Middle East
Despite the obvious military superiority of the United States, signs indicate that Washington is in no hurry to move to an open military scenario against Iran. The question is simple: if the technical advantage is on America’s side, why is the president hesitating?
The answer lies not only in the financial risks of a protracted campaign. Several centers of pressure influence decision-making — both external and internal.
Three groups of influence against escalation
Regional players: fear of conflict escalation
The first group is the leaders of key Muslim countries: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey. Their main argument is the risk of expanding the conflict to the level of a regional war.
In Riyadh and Cairo, there are fears that in the event of a strike, Iran will respond not only against Israeli or American targets but also against neighboring countries in the Persian Gulf. The head of Qatar went to Tehran for consultations — this step is interpreted by many as an attempt to reduce tension.
For the White House, the position of these countries is important: the US has been building a security architecture in the region for decades and is not interested in its destruction.
Professional skeptics from the defense establishment
The second group is former representatives of the American diplomatic and military elite. Among them are former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, CENTCOM officials, former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Wendy Sherman.
Their arguments are not ideological. It is a pragmatic calculation. If the goal is not to overthrow the regime in Tehran, then a military strike may not achieve a strategic result.
In their assessment, airstrikes alone cannot eliminate Iran’s nuclear and missile potential. And a full-scale intervention is politically and socially unacceptable to American society.
“America First”: isolationists
The third group is conservative and progressive isolationists. Among them are media commentator Tucker Carlson, Senator Rand Paul, as well as representatives of the left wing of the Democratic Party — Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Their position is based on the principle: the US should not start a war if Iran has not attacked first. Any preemptive strike is seen as a violation of the logic of defensive policy.
These voices are loud in the media space, but institutionally their influence is limited.
The “hawks” camp and Israel’s position
According to data published in the Israeli press, the leadership of Israel, as well as representatives of the Republican establishment — John Bolton, Tom Cotton, Lindsey Graham, Mike Pompeo — support a tougher course.
They are supported by the American Jewish Committee AIPAC and Christian evangelicals, who traditionally support a strategic alliance with Israel.
For now, this group maintains significant influence over the Republican part of the political field. However, the final decision rests with the administration.
Israeli argument: delay does not equal resolution
Jerusalem’s position is unequivocally formulated. Any agreement that does not provide for the complete and irreversible dismantling of Iran’s nuclear and missile program is considered a temporary pause, not a strategic solution.
Past experience shows: Tehran uses negotiation processes to buy time, technological enhancement, and diplomatic legitimization.
In this context, НАновости — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency notes the difference in approaches. For the US, as a global power, risk management over time is an acceptable strategy. For Israel, located within the radius of direct threat, a strategic mistake can have existential consequences.
Washington’s hesitation reflects the balance between military logic, domestic politics, and regional diplomacy. Technical superiority does not yet mean political readiness to use it.
The question is not whether the US is capable of striking. The question is whether they believe that this strike will lead to the desired result without triggering a chain reaction throughout the Middle East.
