In the rarefied environment of the West Wing, the ghosts of the “Twelve-Day War” that transpired last June still linger in the Situation Room. For President Trump, the goal remains unchanged: the same triad of demands that Iran ceases its enrichment activities, dismantles its missile program, and severs its “axis of resistance” connections. But as Washington pursues a policy dictated almost entirely by Israeli security imperatives and the Zionist donor class, the calculus on the ground—and in the water—has fundamentally changed due to the reality of the new, tri-polar world that has emerged.

The Trump administration finds itself trapped between competing imperatives: the operational caution of the foreign policy establishment and the political demands of a donor class for whom Iranian capitulation is non-negotiable. The recent White House visit of Prime Minister Netanyahu—conducted while he faces the shadow of an International Criminal Court warrant for the devastation in Gaza—was marked by the highest levels of diplomatic ceremony.

President Trump himself stated bluntly: “I don’t care about international law, only about my morals”—a remarkable admission that underscores the ideological foundations guiding current US policy.

President Trump himself stated bluntly: “I don’t care about international law, only about my morals”—a remarkable admission that underscores the ideological foundations guiding current US policy.

The aborted January operation was not, as armchair strategists argued, a “genius-level bait-and-switch” meant to test Iranian defenses. Rather, US military planners reached a pragmatic realization: the theatre of operations in the Persian Gulf had been fundamentally re-engineered. The introduction of Chinese Type 055 “super destroyers” and signals intelligence ships into the Gulf of Oman has effectively ended the era of US operational surprise.

The question is no longer whether Washington can force Iranian capitulation through coercion, but whether it possesses the military options and political will to act in an environment where costs have escalated dramatically, and the likelihood of success has diminished correspondingly.

The question is no longer whether Washington can force Iranian capitulation through coercion, but whether it possesses the military options and political will to act in an environment where costs have escalated dramatically, and the likelihood of success has diminished correspondingly.

The new maritime shield

The deployment of the Type 055 class vessels—rated by naval analysts as the world’s most capable surface combatants—represents far more than a “freedom of navigation” exercise. With the Type 055 and the Liaowang-1 surveillance vessel now positioned in the Gulf of Oman, Iran enjoys a 24/7 “god’s eye view” of US Navy movements. Through integration with China’s Beidou satellite network, the Islamic Republic now possesses intelligence capabilities rivalling top-tier NATO members.

“Every carrier movement, every aerial refuelling track, every missile cruiser repositioning is now visible to Tehran in near-real-time,” noted one Pentagon official speaking on background. “We’ve lost the element of surprise we’ve relied on for decades.”

“Every carrier movement, every aerial refuelling track, every missile cruiser repositioning is now visible to Tehran in near-real-time,” noted one Pentagon official speaking on background. “We’ve lost the element of surprise we’ve relied on for decades.”

For Beijing, this is neither ideological posturing nor empty symbolism—it is cold strategic calculation. Iran represents the indispensable Western node of the Belt and Road Initiative, the critical energy supplier that cannot be permitted to fall under Western control. As China’s Foreign Ministry stated in a recent declaration on Cuba that applies equally to Iran: “China strongly urges the United States to immediately cancel all sanctions in accordance with the United Nations Charter and international law.” The loss of Iran to a NATO-aligned entity would constitute an unmitigated economic and geopolitical disaster that Beijing is manifestly unwilling to permit.

READ: Iran holds military drill in Strait of Hormuz on eve of indirect nuclear talks with US

Russia’s “unseen” support

Moscow’s contribution, while less visible than China’s naval deployment, may prove equally consequential. During the twelve-day conflict that tested Iranian infrastructure and resolve, Russian support transcended mere rhetoric. When Israeli and American cyberattacks crippled Iran’s communications network—a sophisticated operation designed to blind Tehran’s command structure—Russian technical teams arrived within 48 hours, working alongside Iranian engineers to restore critical infrastructure.

While China secures the waves, Moscow secures the wires. Since the June 2025 ceasefire, an uninterrupted sequence of Russian military cargo flights has delivered what intelligence officials describe as “unseen” capabilities, reportedly including:

Advanced air defenses: Upgraded S-400 components replacing batteries lost to Israeli strikes

Hardened communications: Encrypted systems designed to withstand the “cyber-tsunamis” that temporarily disabled Iran’s grid

Satellite intelligence: The recent Jam-e Jam 1 satellite launch aboard a Russian Proton-M rocket has dramatically enhanced Iran’s ability to coordinate regional operations, even under total internet blackout conditions

The emergence of a new reality

The regional security architecture continues evolving in directions profoundly unfavorable to American interests. Each month without resolution sees deeper integration of Iranian, Chinese, and Russian systems—militarily, economically, and in intelligence sharing. What began as tactical cooperation is crystallising into a strategic partnership, creating the adversarial coalition American policy precisely has historically sought to prevent.

Washington’s current “negotiating” posture—predicated on conditions resembling unconditional surrender—confronts an immovable object. Iran views itself as a sovereign nation operating outside the U.S.-led financial system, now possessing the “technological buoyancy” provided by great power patrons that eliminates any imperative to capitulate.

What the administration must confront is the prospect of another January-style hesitation. Should Trump choose to “knock down” Iran’s nuclear program, as he has publicly threatened, he will not face the Iran of the past. He will face a nation operating under a Sino-Russian intelligence umbrella that has transformed every U.S. naval movement into a publicly observable event in Tehran.

As joint Iran-China-Russia naval exercises approach in mid-February, the “New Axis” delivers an unmistakable message to Washington: the Persian Gulf is no longer an American lake, and the cost of carrying out an Israeli-driven mandate may soon prove too steep for this administration to bear.

The question haunting the Situation Room is whether policymakers will recognize this new reality before testing it—or whether the ghosts of the Twelve-Day War will be joined by spectres far more terrible.

OPINION: Missiles, carriers, and red lines: Washington, Tehran and Jerusalem face off in a historic confrontation. Who blinks first?

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor