Telling clues revealed that US war imminent: '90% chance'

As an adviser to President Donald Trump told Axios that “I think there is 90% chance we see kinetic action” against Iran in the next few weeks following nuclear talks in Switzerland, US military movement on Wednesday fueled fears of an imminent attack on the Middle Eastern country.

Multiple open-source intelligence accounts on social media shared images of what OSINTdefender called “one of the busiest days for the US Air Force in Europe that I have seen in recent history, with close to a dozen KC-135R/T Stratotankers airborne across the Mediterranean and off the coast of Spain, while a steady line of C-17A Globemaster IIIs can be seen heading towards and returning from bases in the Middle East.”

Sharing a similar image showing North America, Europe, and the top of Africa, intelligence analyst Oliver Alexander declared on X that “the tankers just keep coming.”

Greek economist and Progressive International co-founder Yanis Varoufakis responded to that post with a clear message directed at Trump—who notably abandoned the United States’ previous nuclear deal with Iran during his first term.

“Looks like an imminent US strike is in train as US tanker planes are heading eastwards. HANDS OFF IRAN Mr. TRUMP,” he said. “And to the rest of us: Let’s do whatever it takes to oppose another war crime—this time against the Iranian people.”

Also spotlighting the US military movements on Wednesday, progressive US political commentator and talk show host Kyle Kulinski nodded to Trump’s deadly invasion of Venezuela last month to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and hand over the South American country’s nationalized oil industry to his US campaign donors.

A US attack on Iran by “imperialist warmonger Trump” would be “another illegal and offensive war against a country that didn’t attack us,” Kulinski said.

The observed military movements came just hours after Axios not only published the Trump official’s remark about a 90% chance of war, but also reported that “a US military operation in Iran would likely be a massive, weekslong campaign that would look more like full-fledged war than last month’s pinpoint operation in Venezuela,” according to unnamed sources who “noted it would likely be a joint US-Israeli campaign.”

In the Middle East, “Trump’s armada has grown to include two aircraft carriers, a dozen warships, hundreds of fighter jets, and multiple air defense systems. Some of that firepower is still on its way,” the outlet highlighted. “More than 150 US military cargo flights have moved weapons systems and ammunition to the Middle East. Just in the past 24 hours, another 50 fighter jets—F-35s, F-22s, and F-16s—headed to the region.”

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that leaders in Iran “want to reach a nuclear deal with the US, but they are also rushing to prepare for war in case talks between the countries fail,” including by “deploying its forces, dispersing decision-making authority, fortifying its nuclear sites, and expanding its crackdown on domestic dissent.”

As the newspaper detailed:

A Russian warship arrived at the Strait of Hormuz and docked at the Iranian port town of Bandar Abbas ahead of a military exercise planned for Thursday, according to Iranian and Russian state-run media.

The exercises are taking place not far from the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, which is sailing off the coast of Oman.

“More dangerous than the American warship is the weapon that can send it to the bottom of the sea,” Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, said Tuesday.

While Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said this week’s “constructive” talks with Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner concluded with “a general agreement on some guiding principles,” US Vice President JD Vance contributed to rising concerns on Tuesday as he discussed the ayatollah’s remarks, negotiations, and regional military buildup on Fox News.

“I think the president has a lot of options. We do have a very powerful military. The president’s shown a willingness to use it. He also has a remarkable diplomatic team and he’s shown a willingness to use that too,” Vance said. “The United States has certain red lines. Our primary interest here is we don’t want Iran to get a nuclear weapon.”

Vance, who noted that he spoke directly with Witkoff and Kushner earlier Tuesday, claimed that the administration wants a resolution reached through conversation but also stressed that Trump “has all options on the table.”

Appearing on Democracy Now! Wednesday, Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and an expert on US-Iranian relations, warned that “we have a very dangerous situation, because both sides actually believe that a short, intense war may improve their negotiating position. The Trump administration, of course, believes that because of its overwhelming military power that it has now gathered in the vicinity of Iran, it will be able to take out Iran militarily rather quickly and then force it to capitulate.”

“The Iranians have a different calculation,” Parsi continued. “They believe that they have the ability to inflict significant damage on the United States in the short term, including on civilian oil installations in the region, closing down the Strait of Hormuz, that would shoot up oil prices, and the initial cost of this to the United States would be so immense, and the United States would recognize that it would have to go for a longer war, which it cannot afford, and as a result, it would get the United States to back off.”

Parsi previously led the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which said in a Wednesday statement that the anonymous Trump official’s comment about a 90% chance of an armed conflict with Iran “should trigger immediate action from Congress, the branch of government legally and constitutionally charged with deciding when the US goes to war.”

“With extensive military deployments underway and public signals that diplomacy may soon be abandoned, the risk of a large-scale, prolonged, and senseless conflict is immediate and real,” NIAC argued. “A war on Iran would not help Iranians demanding change in the face of government repression but instead kill innocent people, create instability inside Iran, and ignite a regionwide conflict.”

The Republican-controlled Congress has so far shown an unwillingness to stand up to Trump’s violence abroad, with multiple war powers resolutions about Venezuela and his boat bombings on high seas failing. Still, NIAC pressured lawmakers to act now, emphasizing that “a war with Iran would carry enormous regional consequences, endanger American service members and Iranian civilians alike, destabilize global markets, and risk spiraling escalation across the region and diminished civil liberties at home.”