The United States is amassing a significant military presence in the Middle East, a move that hints at the possibility of a “sustained” bombing campaign targeting Iran. This development comes amid ongoing negotiations in which President Donald Trump has placed firm demands on Tehran. Should Iran persist in its refusal, a military response could be imminent, occurring in a matter of weeks or even days.

Currently, an additional aircraft carrier is on its way to the region, joining an already significant number of strike and support aircraft. This buildup, characterized by its sheer magnitude, is extraordinary and hasn’t been seen in recent decades, according to Alex Plitsas, a former Pentagon official and fellow at the Atlantic Council. He remarked on the unprecedented combination of land and sea-based military assets now present in the area.

“What we have amassed is an unprecedented size combination of land-based attack aircraft, command and control and sea-based platforms,” Plitsas noted. “We haven’t seen a buildup like this in this region in decades.”

Last year, Operation Midnight Hammer demonstrated the US’s capability to swiftly strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, executing its mission in just 25 minutes. However, if a new campaign is launched, it could extend over several days or even weeks, according to US officials.

The current deployment includes carrier strike groups, land-based aircraft, refueling tankers, and command-and-control assets. This array of military resources provides President Trump with the option to initiate a sustained air and naval campaign without the need for deploying ground troops.

“The military footprint tells us that that option is quite large,” Plitsas explained. “This is sufficient firepower for a sustained and very large air and naval strike campaign.”

That much firepower would allow the US to launch a massive military campaign if Trump so chooses — with options ranging from targeted strikes on weapons facilities and mid-level officials to full-blown decapitation strikes that would eliminate the current radical Islamist Khamenei regime.

“The only thing that any of this tells us for sure is the range of options on the table and what’s in and what’s out,” Plitsas said.

The president could decide against military action entirely, but the time remaining for that may soon run out.

“Diplomacy is always his first option, and Iran would be very wise to make a deal with President Trump and with this administration,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday.

Timelines and targets

The buildup comes after Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday said Iran had failed to meet several of Trump’s negotiating “red lines” despite some progress in talks in Geneva that day.

“It was very clear that the president has set some red lines that the Iranians are not yet willing to actually acknowledge and work through,” Vance told Fox News host Martha MacCallum.

The bold statement in addition to the massive military buildup indicates Trump is dead-serious about getting what he demands, a source familiar with the White House’s discussions told The Post.

“The message to the Iranians is crystal clear: Come to the table, meet the red lines and get a deal done — or else,” the person said.

But Leavitt said the US and Iran are “still very far apart on some issues.”

“I believe the Iranians are expected to come back to us with some more detail in the next couple of weeks, and so the President will continue to watch us,” she said.

Two weeks is also the approximate timeline it will take for the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford to arrive in region, military experts have predicted.

The president previously gave Tehran a two-week notice to come to the table on nuclear talks in June 2025 — only to turn around and order the US to destroy Iranian nuclear sites before that timeline ran out.

“If you look at the timeline for them to respond the Vice President’s comments and the military buildup, what it tells us is that we are already at the potential for a massive campaign at any point if the president choose to order it,” a source familiar with White House discussions told The Post.

Leavitt said Trump is consulting “many people” to determine how to proceed — “his national security team first and foremost.”

“This is something obviously the President takes seriously,” she said. “He’s always thinking about what’s in the best interest of the United States of America, of our military, of the American people, and that’s how he makes decisions with respect to military action.”

If a decision is made to move forward with strikes, military planning experts say strikes must first prioritize Iran’s abilities to retaliate.

“What you need to do initially is take out the missiles, the launchers and the drones and drone factors, if you can, right away to prevent retaliatory strikes against US forces and the Israelis in the region,” Plitsas said.

After that, the US would have a range of options at its disposal, from targeting Iranian officials instrumental in January’s brutal crackdown on protesters despite Trump’s repeated warnings — all the way to potential decapitation strikes to take out Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his leadership.

With so many options on the table, there are more questions than answers.

“If it happens, it’s going to be weeks of sustained campaigns,” the source familiar with discussions told The Post. “Questions are who survives the opening strikes? If that happens, who’s in charge? You know, when do we stop?”

“Is just a [Venezuelan dictator Nicolas] Maduro-type thing where we do a quick, fast decapitation, take out the missiles, everything else, and negotiate with what’s left?” the person added.

US vs. Israel’s priorities

A key complication is that different players in the region have different priorities, Plitsas said.

For Washington, the main concern remains Iran’s nuclear program, including stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. For Israel, the urgent threat is Tehran’s growing ballistic missile arsenal, which Plitsas said is expanding by roughly 300 missiles per month and could soon exceed defensive interception capacity.

“At some point, you go from having sufficient missiles to serve as a deterrent to building a stockpile that’s sufficient for war,” he said. “When they cross that threshold … it’s going to invite an Israeli strike.”

Regional partners are also focused on Iranian-backed proxy groups, creating a three-front problem that a nuclear-only agreement would not solve.

“Even if the US strikes a great nuclear deal, if that does not extend into a deal over the ballistic missiles as well, that doesn’t mean the Israelis are going to be satisfied,” the US source familiar told The Post. “If it doesn’t include the proxy groups, other regional partners may not be satisfied either.”

The person further warned that limiting negotiations solely to nuclear issues could actually increase the likelihood of conflict — particularly if Iran continues expanding its missile arsenal.

“Their continued production of ballistic missiles is effectively serving as a countdown clock toward a potential strike,” the person said. “The smartest thing that they could do at this point is freeze ballistic missile production.”

What’s more, Plitsas warned Tehran may be misreading Trump’s willingness to use force.

“If there’s a question about his intentionality and somebody doesn’t think he’s going to do it, they are very sadly mistaken,” he said. “It will come down to whether the president believes that there is still room to negotiate. Or if at this point they’re wasting their time.”