By Yang Tianzi
The Persian Gulf has once again become a global focal point. The U.S. Navy and Iranian armed forces have recently been involved in a series of confrontations in the Gulf, including the U.S. military shooting down an Iranian drone and Iran attempting to intercept U.S. oil tankers. At the same time, both sides have been actively engaging in behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts, attempting to resolve the crisis through negotiation. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the recent military confrontations in the Persian Gulf, the progress and obstacles in U.S.-Iran negotiations, and the potential geopolitical consequences of this crisis.
US shoots down Iranian drone: technical show of force and strategic testing
The military confrontation on Feb. 3 marked a new, dangerous phase in U.S.-Iran relations. While the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Lincoln was patrolling international waters approximately 800 kilometers off Iran’s southern coast, an Iranian Mohajer-139 drone approached the fleet provocatively. Despite the U.S. military employing “de-escalation measures,” including radio warnings and electronic countermeasures, the drone continued toward the carrier and was ultimately shot down by an F-35C stealth fighter.
This incident carries multiple implications. Technically, it demonstrated the combat capability and rapid-response mechanisms of U.S. advanced fighter jets. Strategically, it sent a clear message to Iran: any threatening behavior within areas the U.S. considers secure will be met with decisive retaliation. For Iran, sending drones for close-range reconnaissance served both as intelligence gathering and as a tactical probe of U.S. response patterns.
Hours after the drone incident, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard launched a more aggressive maritime operation. Two armed speedboats, supported by a Mohajer-type drone, approached a U.S.-flagged oil tanker at high speed, issuing threats over radio and attempting to board and seize the vessel. Had this succeeded, it would have represented a serious violation of international maritime trade freedom and could have triggered a larger-scale military conflict.
Success
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Success
Check your email to complete sign up
The U.S. military’s response was swift and effective. A destroyer, supported by air assets, successfully escorted the tanker out of danger, forcing the Iranian speedboats to abandon their attempt. This successful escort not only protected commercial shipping but also demonstrated the U.S. military’s integrated air-sea operational capability in the Persian Gulf. Notably, Iran later sent another drone to monitor the Lincoln from a distance, deliberately maintaining a safe range—showing that while testing U.S. limits, it also sought to avoid escalating the situation further.
Trump’s deterrence: the ‘midnight hammer’
In response to the Gulf confrontations, U.S. President Trump referenced the “Midnight Hammer” operation during a media Q&A in the White House Oval Office. This was the codename for the U.S. military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities in June of the previous year. Trump stated that Iran “would not want to experience the ‘Midnight Hammer’ again,” using the memory of that operation as a psychological foundation for current negotiations.
Trump’s strategic logic is clear: by recalling past military actions, he demonstrates U.S. resolve and capability to Iran while creating favorable conditions for ongoing negotiations. He emphasized that Iran previously had opportunities to resolve issues diplomatically but failed due to a lack of sincerity, ultimately resulting in military strikes. This narrative serves both as a warning to Iran and as a demonstration of his “peace through strength” diplomatic philosophy to domestic and international audiences.
The current U.S. strategy exhibits a “fight while negotiating” approach. On one hand, the U.S. continues to amass military forces in the Middle East—including carrier strike groups, fighter squadrons, and missile defense systems—applying comprehensive pressure on Iran. On the other hand, senior U.S. officials are actively preparing for diplomatic engagement with Iranian representatives. This dual-track approach aims to maximize U.S. leverage and force Iran to make substantive concessions under pressure.
Trump indicated that he believes the current military confrontations are Iran’s “bluff” before negotiations—intended to strengthen its bargaining position rather than provoke full-scale war. This assessment is based on evaluating Iran’s leadership as rational actors, unlikely to endure another “Midnight Hammer”-style strike and therefore likely to compromise at the appropriate time.
Core points of US-Iran dispute
According to Sab, a scholar at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), Iran may adopt a “tactical compromise” strategy regarding its nuclear program. Specifically, Iran might agree to forgo highly enriched nuclear material or temporarily suspend certain uranium enrichment activities—but primarily to buy time and wait for changes in the international environment before resuming broader nuclear operations.
For Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei, fully abandoning the nuclear program is politically unacceptable. The nuclear program represents not only a huge investment but also national dignity and technological sovereignty. In Iran’s political culture, a complete dismantling could be perceived as “surrender” to the U.S., potentially undermining the regime’s legitimacy and authority. Therefore, Iran is more likely to pursue a “retain core, limit development” strategy—making certain technical concessions while preserving the ability to restart nuclear activities.
Ballistic missiles are widely regarded as the most difficult issue in negotiations. For Iran, missiles are the only strategic weapons capable of deterring adversaries and ensuring regime survival in the context of relatively weaker conventional forces. Iran has clearly stated that its missile program is a “red line” in negotiations, non-negotiable.
From Iran’s strategic perspective, abandoning missiles would be self-defeating. Facing Israel’s military advantage and U.S. presence in the Middle East, ballistic missiles are among Iran’s few effective deterrents. Iran claims to have rebuilt its missile stockpile following last year’s conflict and warns it would not hesitate to use these weapons to defend national security.
This stance makes missiles the biggest obstacle in U.S.-Iran talks. While the U.S. and Israel view Iran’s missile capability as a major threat, Iran sees it as its last line of security. In this zero-sum logic, compromise is extremely difficult.
