WASHINGTON : On January 28, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump sharply intensified pressure on Iran, warning that failure to comply with American demands could trigger an attack carried out “with speed and violence.” Underscoring the threat, the Pentagon repositioned the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, alongside destroyers, bombers and fighter jets, to locations within striking distance of Iranian territory.

At the heart of Washington’s demands is a permanent halt to Iran’s uranium enrichment programme, alongside restrictions on ballistic missile development and an end to Tehran’s support for regional proxy groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. The Trump administration appears to view the current moment as an opportunity to apply maximum pressure on an Iran weakened by economic strain and widespread protests that swept the country earlier this month.

However, security experts warn that military action could unleash consequences far beyond the immediate confrontation. Iran, with a population of around 93 million and deeply entrenched state institutions, is not seen as a fragile state likely to collapse quickly under external force. Its powerful security apparatus, led by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has been built to withstand prolonged crises.

Even U.S. officials have acknowledged the uncertainty. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers there was “no simple answer” to who might take control if Iran’s leadership were to fall, noting that the exiled opposition remains fragmented and lacks the capacity to govern such a vast and divided nation.

Analysts describe Iran as a “threshold state”, possessing the technical capability to produce nuclear weapons without having crossed the final line. A destabilised threshold state, they warn, carries serious risks, including the loss of centralized control over nuclear materials, the potential spread of expertise, and a race by competing factions to secure deterrence before any possible collapse.

Historical precedents add to the concern. The breakup of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s raised alarms over missing nuclear materials, while the A.Q. Khan network demonstrated how nuclear know-how can spread across borders, reaching countries such as North Korea and Libya.

Recent history has also reshaped global perceptions. The June 2025 strikes by the U.S. and Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities, followed by renewed threats from Washington, have sent a stark signal: remaining at the nuclear threshold does not guarantee security. Iran’s leadership has already warned that U.S. demands amount to disarmament that would leave the country vulnerable to attack.

Critics argue that military pressure undermines the credibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose inspections had been monitoring Iran’s programme. Strikes or threats of force disrupt inspections and risk eroding confidence in international non-proliferation frameworks, raising a fundamental question for other states: if compliance offers no protection, why comply?

The implications extend across the Middle East and beyond. Saudi Arabia has openly stated it would pursue nuclear weapons if Iran did, while its growing defence ties with Pakistan are widely viewed as a strategic hedge. Turkey has also periodically signalled interest in an independent nuclear capability, particularly if regional balances shift.

Further afield, allies such as South Korea and Japan may reassess their reliance on U.S. security guarantees if regional proliferation accelerates. Gulf Arab states, meanwhile, have reportedly urged Washington to avoid military action, fearing that a strike would deepen instability rather than contain it.

As tensions rise, analysts caution that a U.S. strike on Iran could ultimately weaken American influence in the region, encouraging countries to diversify alliances and pursue their own deterrents.