The Key Indicators that the US is Going to Attack Iran

General Dan Caine

My apologies. I should have pointed this out last week. While it is true that Donald Trump has deployed the largest force of US combat aircraft to West Asia/the Middle East since George W Bush did it in early 2003, there are two other key indicators that are not yet lighting up, which would signal an attack is imminent — i.e., NOTAMS and US embassies ordering some or all of its employees to depart the country. As of February 23, only US Embassy Beirut has ordered non-essential employees to depart, while the US embassies in the Gulf states remain intact.

NOTAMs (Notices to Air Missions) are real-time, constantly updated operational documents issued by aviation authorities. Here’s a summary of the current NOTAM/airspace warning picture for the Iran region, based on the most recent information available:

EASA CZIB 2026-02 R1 (issued 16 Jan 2026, valid to 31 Mar 2026): Operators should not fly within Iran’s Tehran FIR at any altitude. EASA cites the potential for U.S. military action placing Iranian air defenses on heightened alert, with an increased likelihood of misidentification. The presence of a wide range of weapons and air-defense systems, combined with unpredictable state responses and possible SAM activation, creates high risk at all altitudes.

Germany NOTAM B0082/26 (issued 10 Feb 2026, valid to 10 Mar 2026): German operators are recommended not to enter Tehran FIR due to hazardous situation and potential risk from escalating conflict and anti-aviation weaponry.

USA SFAR 117 (valid through 31 Oct 2027): All U.S. air carriers, commercial operators, and FAA certificate holders are prohibited from overflying the Tehran FIR due to the risk of misidentification and unannounced military activities.

Italy NOTAM E2877/25 (valid to 15 Mar 2026): Italian carriers advised to have robust risk assessments and contingency planning for any operations in Tehran FIR.

UK AIP ENR 1.1: Ongoing caution for UK operators.

Canada AIC 21/25: Ongoing warning dating back to the Jan 2020 shoot-down of Ukraine International Airlines flight 752.

As you can see, Germany is the only one recommending, not WARNING, German operators to steer clear of Tehran.

The paucity of embassies reducing non-essential personnel, coupled with the limited number of NOTAMs, makes it unlikely that the US will launch an attack imminently.

Donald Trump has painted himself into a corner. We got a surprising insight into Trump’s thinking courtesy of Steve Witkoff. In his February 21, 2026, Fox News interview on My View with Lara Trump, Witkoff said of President Trump:

I don’t want to use the word ‘frustrated,’ because he understands he has plenty of alternatives, but he’s curious as to why they haven’t… I don’t want to use the word ‘capitulated,’ but why they haven’t capitulated. Why, under this pressure, with the amount of seapower and naval power that we have over there, why haven’t they come to us and said, ‘We profess we don’t want a weapon, so here’s what we’re prepared to do’?

Trump naively believed, based on what Witkoff said, that the massive deployment of US air assets to Jordan and Saudi Arabia, coupled with the withdrawal of some US troops from bases in and around the Persian Gulf, would frighten Iran into making concessions and becoming more malleable in terms of negotiations. That didn’t work. It had the opposite effect… Iran has been busy fortifying key installations, installing additional air defense assets courtesy of Russia and China, scattering its missile forces and designating replacements in the event key leaders are killed.

Trump has put himself in an untenable and dangerous bind… I see four possible scenarios/options:

Option 1: He authorizes Steve Witkoff to secure a deal with Iran that will be the equivalent of JCPOA-lite — i.e., Iran agrees to inspections that will verify that Iran is not building a nuke and Iran accepts some limits on uranium enrichment. Trump will then declare victory and begin withdrawing the combat jets from the area. He will essentially be accepting the deal he tore up in 2018.

Option 2: Keep US forces in place and on alert, but delay indefinitely any military action while pursuing inconclusive negotiations.

Option 3: Launch a targeted strike.

Option 4: Launch a full-scale attack.

The problem with Option 3 is that Iran will treat it as if it were Option 4, which means that Iran would attack, as promised, all US bases in the region. This would likely compel Trump to double down on his military venture and he would find himself bogged down in a war of attrition.

According to a report that came out late on Monday in the Washington Post, Trump’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Caine, appears to recognize the peril the US faces if it pursues any of the military options:

As the Trump administration weighs an attack on Iran, the Pentagon’s top general has cautioned President Donald Trump and other officials that shortfalls in critical munitions and a lack of support from allies will add significant risk to the operation and to U.S. personnel, according to people familiar with internal discussions. . . .

[A]ny major operation against Iran will face challenges because the U.S. munitions stockpile has been significantly depleted by Washington’s ongoing defense of Israel and support for Ukraine. . . .

Trump, after this article’s publication, posted on social media that it is “100% incorrect” that Caine is “against us going to War with Iran.” Trump said that the general would not like to see a military confrontation with Iran but that if it did happen, “it is his opinion that it will be something easily won.” The people who spoke to The Post about Caine’s thinking directly contradicted Trump’s optimistic characterization.

At least Caine appears to grasp the enormity of the risks facing the Trump administration if the President authorizes the attack on Iran to begin. The fact that people loyal to Caine gave this story to the Washington Post tells me that some of the top military brass understand that going to war with Iran has the potential to turn in to a big shit sandwich. If they have to eat it they want it on the record that Trump was warned not to do this.

The line between war and peace hinges on one thing… Will Donald Trump accept the deal Iran is willing to make on providing a solid guarantee that Iran will not build a nuke? If he takes the deal, no war. If he refuses, then war is inevitable. The US is not prepared for such a war, but Iran is. The choice is entirely up to Donald Trump

Nima and I spent most of our hour long conversation talking about Iran and his assessment that the Ayatollah enjoys more support than the West is willing to acknowledge:

Here is my Monday chat with Judge Napolitano: