Drama unfolds as the USS Lincoln nears Iran! Tensions soar as one of America's mightiest aircraft carriers stands ready at the Middle East doorstep. This move could signal a storm on the horizon as the US bolsters Israel's defenses against potential threats.

Originally patrolling the South China Sea, the Lincoln now closes in on Iran. America isn’t stopping there! A specialist missile defense ship and the THAAD air defense system are on the way. The scene eerily mirrors last June's pre-strike build-up before the US launched a devastating attack on Iranian nuclear sites, firing 30 Tomahawks and unleashing B-2 bombers.

President Trump dials up the pressure, cryptically remarking, “Help is on its way,” during Iran’s domestic unrest. He's staying coy on demands but hints at a formidable US presence near Iran. Trump keeps them guessing: “We have a big force going. Just in case!” Is Tehran listening?

Iran's not backing down! Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi fires a chilling warning in The Wall Street Journal. Iran is ready to “fire back with everything we have” if America dares to strike. The stage is set for a high-stakes showdown!

With tensions ratcheting up, all eyes are on what follows. Will diplomacy prevail, or are we edging closer to conflict?

Key Takeaways:

• USS Lincoln's deployment has Middle East on edge!

• US mimics past military maneuvers before striking Iran.

• Iran vows fierce retaliation if provoked.

  

Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Express 2026-01-25

 

 

View full article

European airlines are already avoiding the area.

What happened to no more foreign wars Mr I want the Nobel ehh?

Be careful going around corners!

Last time you were down that neck of the woods one of your multi million dollar aeroplanes fell off!

The Middle East is a quagmire for the USA.

it's all about oil and Israel.

The recent escalation of hostilities is a disaster in the making.

Three carrier based F/A 18F Super Hornets have been lost in separate incidents at sea.

The Kaiser-class oiler Big Horn ran aground off the coast of Oman in 2024.

More recently, the aircraft carrier Truman collided with a bulk carrier while approaching the Suez Canal.

These events of extreme incompetence make plain why the US hasn't decisively won a major conflict since 1945.

I see a large order of TACO in the future.

Jeez, that's a lot of exclamation marks...

10 hours ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

The Middle East is a quagmire for the USA.

it's all about oil and Israel.

The recent escalation of hostilities is a disaster in the making.

Three carrier based F/A 18F Super Hornets have been lost in separate incidents at sea.

The Kaiser-class oiler Big Horn ran aground off the coast of Oman in 2024.

More recently, the aircraft carrier Truman collided with a bulk carrier while approaching the Suez Canal.

These events of extreme incompetence make plain why the US hasn't decisively won a major conflict since 1945.

The U.S. hasn't "decisively won" every conflict since 1945 because modern wars aren't binary (no unconditional surrenders like WWII). But it has achieved strategic goals repeatedly—containing threats, protecting interests—without quagmires.

The Navy's mishaps are human/systemic issues under pressure, not proof of inherent failure.

The region is complex, not hopeless; dismissing U.S. presence as futile ignores how absence could invite far greater chaos (e.g., unchecked Iran, disrupted shipping).

Surely its best to have them there and not need them, than to need them and not have them?

14 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

The U.S. hasn't "decisively won" every conflict since 1945 because modern wars aren't binary (no unconditional surrenders like WWII). But it has achieved strategic goals repeatedly—containing threats, protecting interests—without quagmires.

The Navy's mishaps are human/systemic issues under pressure, not proof of inherent failure.

The region is complex, not hopeless; dismissing U.S. presence as futile ignores how absence could invite far greater chaos (e.g., unchecked Iran, disrupted shipping).

Surely its best to have them there and not need them, than to need them and not have them?

Ah OK then. So the US achieved its goals in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan then? 🤣. I'll give you Grenada - 'USA USA USA' 😂

I cancelled my flight from Bangkok to Baku because of trump the fart and his missile toys. It turns out the leg from Dubai to Baku with FlyDubai flies straight across Iran and over Tehran and are still going there along with a load of Russian flights as the only other ones. Apparently FlyDubai even flew over the area where India and Pakistan were throwing missiles ar each other some months ago. I lost £220 in the cancellation but its worth it. Have to fly Turkish via Istanbul now but its about the same flight time anyway amd Turkish even avoid Afghanistan.

On 1/26/2026 at 7:10 AM, KhunLA said:

That is some beautiful site!!

But i don't expect the Iranian regime will think so!

On 1/26/2026 at 7:27 AM, stevenl said:

European airlines are already avoiding the area.

Wise choice!!

On 1/26/2026 at 6:33 AM, ASEAN NOW News said:

Iran is ready to “fire back with everything we have” if America dares to strike.

... and what is it you have, Iran? C'mon, be specific...

On 1/25/2026 at 3:33 PM, ASEAN NOW News said:

Iran is ready to “fire back with everything we have” if America dares to strike.

12 days of hell, they could do nothing and later fired missiles, but already called to let them know that missiles are coming. 😂🤣

2 hours ago, klauskunkel said:

... and what is it you have, Iran? C'mon, be specific...

From what the lefty MSM is saying, in the hiatus since the last US strikes, the Iranian's have re-armed with newer and better weaponry and tech from China.

There's some YT vids out there, with US Navy showing off what some of these ship's capabilities are, in defense of incoming, and playing offense. Simply amazing how high tech and capabilities of, in such a small window of time, detection to destroyed.

On 1/26/2026 at 7:30 AM, Tug said:

What happened to no more foreign wars Mr I want the Nobel ehh?

In his own words.

Norway decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace ...

18 minutes ago, Real Name Hidden said:

14 hours ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

The Middle East is a quagmire for the USA.

it's all about oil and Israel.

The recent escalation of hostilities is a disaster in the making.

Three carrier based F/A 18F Super Hornets have been lost in separate incidents at sea.

The Kaiser-class oiler Big Horn ran aground off the coast of Oman in 2024.

More recently, the aircraft carrier Truman collided with a bulk carrier while approaching the Suez Canal.

These events of extreme incompetence make plain why the US hasn't decisively won a major conflict since 1945..

Agreed.

Trump was elected on a platform of keeping us out of these unwinnable foreign wars.

He has been a total failure in that regard no matter what his success has been with closing the southern border.

51 minutes ago, DeaconJohn said:

Agreed.

Trump was elected on a platform of keeping us out of these unwinnable foreign wars.

He has been a total failure in that regard no matter what his success has been with closing the southern border.

Starting with Vietnam, these wars have been "unwinnable* for a reason.

The MIC that Ike warned about has been in the driver's seat and is taking us down the road to perdition.

4 hours ago, klauskunkel said:

... and what is it you have, Iran? C'mon, be specific...

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

From what the lefty MSM is saying, in the hiatus since the last US strikes, the Iranian's have re-armed with newer and better weaponry and tech from China.

I see: Chopsticks...

5 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

The U.S. hasn't "decisively won" every conflict since 1945 because modern wars aren't binary (no unconditional surrenders like WWII). But it has achieved strategic goals repeatedly—containing threats, protecting interests—without quagmires.

The Navy's mishaps are human/systemic issues under pressure, not proof of inherent failure.

The region is complex, not hopeless; dismissing U.S. presence as futile ignores how absence could invite far greater chaos (e.g., unchecked Iran, disrupted shipping).

Surely its best to have them there and not need them, than to need them and not have them?

That's well articulated, but it's hogwash - agenda-driven hogwash is what it sounds like.

Yes, for sure, if the US were to pull out of the Middle East, Iran would in all probability dominate the region.

we don't want that, do we?

Shalom chaver.

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

That is HILARIOUS!!!!...Good one!

14 minutes ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

That's well articulated, but it's hogwash - agenda-driven hogwash is what it sounds like.

Yes, for sure, if the US were to pull out of the Middle East, Iran would in all probability dominate the region.

we don't want that, do we?

Shalom chaver.

Your agreement that a U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East would likely allow Iran to dominate the region is correct—and that's precisely why continued U.S. presence (deterrence, naval patrols, alliances) is strategically justified, not "hogwash."

An unchecked Iran would accelerate nuclear ambitions, intensify proxy attacks (Houthis, Hezbollah, Iraqi militias), disrupt global shipping (Strait of Hormuz, Red Sea), spike oil prices worldwide, and create broader instability (refugee flows, regional wars).

U.S. engagement prevents worse outcomes—not perfect, but far better than the vacuum that would follow withdrawal (as seen post-Afghanistan).

Dismissing this role as futile or agenda-driven ignores evidence from non-partisan sources (RAND, CSIS, Brookings, Atlantic Council) showing deterrence has kept shipping lanes open, degraded ISIS, and limited escalation.

The region is complex; absence doesn't bring peace—it invites greater chaos and empowers worse actors (Iran, Russia, China proxies).

"Shalom chaver" — peace to you too, but the strategic logic stands: deterrence protects shared interests (energy security, trade routes, counter-terrorism) that affect the entire world, not just one ally.

24 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Your agreement that a U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East would likely allow Iran to dominate the region is correct—and that's precisely why continued U.S. presence (deterrence, naval patrols, alliances) is strategically justified, not "hogwash."

An unchecked Iran would accelerate nuclear ambitions, intensify proxy attacks (Houthis, Hezbollah, Iraqi militias), disrupt global shipping (Strait of Hormuz, Red Sea), spike oil prices worldwide, and create broader instability (refugee flows, regional wars).

U.S. engagement prevents worse outcomes—not perfect, but far better than the vacuum that would follow withdrawal (as seen post-Afghanistan).

Dismissing this role as futile or agenda-driven ignores evidence from non-partisan sources (RAND, CSIS, Brookings, Atlantic Council) showing deterrence has kept shipping lanes open, degraded ISIS, and limited escalation.

The region is complex; absence doesn't bring peace—it invites greater chaos and empowers worse actors (Iran, Russia, China proxies).

"Shalom chaver" — peace to you too, but the strategic logic stands: deterrence protects shared interests (energy security, trade routes, counter-terrorism) that affect the entire world, not just one ally.

The things you describe are exactly what the US and Israel have provoked in the Middle East since WWII.

Not Iran.

This will be my last post on the subject. Thanks for engaging in a spirited debate without descending into ad hominem nastiness.

A group of prominent Iranians with links to football have called on Fifa’s president, Gianni Infantino, to condemn the killing and arrest of footballers and the threats made against players in the country. The demand was made in open letter also addressed to the presidents of Fifa’s 200-plus national associations.

Addressing Infantino, the letter says: “Football, as the most influential social phenomenon in the world, cannot and must not remain silent in the face of executions, killings, arbitrary arrests, and threats against athletes.”

It is understood Iranian authorities are using CCTV footage from shops to compile evidence against those who took part in the protests. The deaths of prominent athletes are often given widespread coverage in the state-run media.

“All they try to do is to create fear,” said one source in Iran who did not want to be named. “They want to say: ‘This is what we do to the athletes, this is what we do to the celebrities, this is what we do to the biggest names. What do you think we can do to you?’”

Iran football great Ali Karimi leads call for Infantino to speak up on protest deaths

What could the US military do to topple the Iran regime?

Stealth bombers (B-21, B-2) and carrier-based aircraft from the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group could target command-and-control centers and senior leadership. The goal would be to paralyze the government and encourage a "cascade of defections" within the security forces.

Dismantling the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the regime's main internal security and paramilitary force would surely be a prime objective. Analysts suggest this might empower the conventional military (Artesh) to side with protesters and take temporary control of the country.

The U.S. could use high-speed satellite internet (e.g., Starlink) to bypass government shutdowns, provide financial support for opposition groups, and undertake cyberattacks to disrupt the regime’s digital surveillance tools.

The US could target critical infrastructure, such as nuclear sites and missile production facilities, to demonstrate the regime's inability to protect national sovereignty, potentially shattering its internal legitimacy.

This could be combined with electronic warfare to blind Iranian radar and communications, potentially allowing special operations forces to conduct high-stakes missions inside Iranian territory. 

However, military experts emphasize that a total collapse is unlikely through air power alone: 

Obstacles:

Foreign military strikes often unify a population against the outside aggressor, potentially strengthening the regime's grip on power by allowing them to label domestic protesters as "foreign stooges".

Iran possesses the region's largest ballistic missile arsenal, which it could use to target U.S. bases or Israeli cities in a "last resort" strike.

A ground invasion is widely considered a "non-starter" due to Iran’s mountainous terrain, large urban populations, and a combined active/reserve force of over 1 million personnel. 

how can the US military topple the Iran regime? - Google Search

Could the Artesh join the protestors and turn against the IRPG?

It would be unprecedented, possibly leading to civil war or a military junta dominated by the IRGC. 

For decades, the regime has ensured the IRGC remains more powerful and loyal to the Supreme Leader than the conventional military. 

who did sanctions against the iran regime impact? - Google Search

Economic Hardship: Sanctions have fueled rampant inflation (exceeding 40-60% for food) and a devalued currency (the rial), wiping out the life savings of the middle class.

Health and Safety: Despite humanitarian exemptions, banking restrictions frequently delay or block the import of life-saving medicines for cancer, asthma, and multiple sclerosis. The civil aviation fleet is also aging and unsafe due to bans on spare parts.

Digital Isolation: Sanctions have led tech giants like Google, GitHub, and Apple to limit services for Iranian users, while the regime uses communication restrictions to stifle dissent.