The USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group's entry into the US Central Command area of responsibility, near Iranian waters, has heightened concerns of a potential escalation in the region.

The deployment coincides with Iran's most severe crackdown on protests in recent memory, bringing Washington and Tehran closer to a direct confrontation than they have been in years.

Iran's leadership is under pressure from both a growing protest movement that seeks regime change and a US administration whose intentions remain unclear, creating uncertainty not only in Tehran but also across the region.

In the event of a potential US military strike, Iran's response may deviate from its typical, measured approach, as seen in previous confrontations with the US.

President Donald Trump's recent warnings, issued amidst Iran's forceful suppression of domestic protests, come at a time of significant internal turmoil for the Islamic Republic, making any potential US attack more likely to lead to rapid escalation, both within Iran and across the region.

Tehran's approach to retaliation has been characterized by restraint and timing in recent years, with a focus on delayed and limited responses.

The aftermath of the US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, which took place on June 21-22, 2025, saw Iran launch a missile attack on the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, operated by the US, on the following day, June 23.

As noted by President Trump, Iran had provided prior notice of the attack, enabling air defenses to intercept the majority of the incoming missiles, and resulting in no reported casualties; this exchange was broadly seen as an attempt by Iran to demonstrate its determination without escalating the situation further.

A comparable sequence of events unfolded in January 2020, during President Trump's initial term in office, when the US carried out the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force, near Baghdad's airport on January 3, prompting Iran to retaliate five days later with a missile strike on the US-operated Ain al-Asad airbase in Iraq.

In this instance as well, advance warning had been given, and although no US personnel suffered direct fatalities, dozens later reported experiencing traumatic brain injuries; this episode further solidified the view that Tehran's strategy involves managing and containing escalation rather than instigating it.

A notable shift is underway in the current landscape.

Iran is recovering from a period of domestic turmoil that ranks among the most significant since the Islamic Republic was founded in 1979.

The protests that broke out in late December and early January were suppressed with force, resulting in a substantial loss of life. According to reports from human rights groups and medical personnel within the country, the estimated death toll is in the thousands, with many more individuals injured or taken into custody.

Confirming the exact number of casualties is challenging due to restricted access and an ongoing internet outage that has persisted for over two weeks. The Iranian government has declined to acknowledge responsibility for the fatalities, instead attributing them to what it calls "terrorist groups" and alleging that Israel is instigating the unrest.

This perspective has been reiterated by high-ranking officials, including the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, who recently suggested that the protests are an extension of the 12-day conflict with Israel last summer. This framing provides insight into the government's prioritization of security and may have been used to justify the severity of the crackdown.

The street protests have continued, albeit on a smaller scale, as the underlying issues remain unaddressed, and the rift between a significant portion of the population and the governing system is more pronounced than ever.

During the 8th and 9th of January, law enforcement struggled to maintain control in several towns and neighborhoods within major cities, ultimately regaining authority through the use of disproportionate force.

The temporary loss of control has seemingly had a profound impact on the authorities, who have since imposed a sense of calm through force rather than dialogue, resulting in a highly volatile situation.

In this context, the potential consequences of any US military action are crucial to consider.

A targeted strike might enable the US to assert a military victory while minimizing the risk of a broader regional conflict; however, it could also give the Iranian government an excuse to launch another wave of domestic crackdowns.

The current situation poses a threat of renewed repression, with detained protesters facing the possibility of severe punishment, including capital punishment, as well as widespread detentions.

Conversely, a large-scale US operation that substantially undermines the Iranian government could potentially destabilize the country, driving it to the edge of turmoil.

A rapid dissolution of centralized power in a nation with a population exceeding 90 million would likely be followed by a prolonged period of instability, rather than a swift and orderly transition, potentially unleashing factional conflicts and regional repercussions that could take years to mitigate.

The escalating rhetoric from Tehran can be attributed, in part, to the perceived dangers associated with the current situation.

High-ranking officials from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the regular military, and senior political figures have issued warnings that any US military action, regardless of its scope, would be regarded as a declaration of war.

The recent declarations have caused concern among Iran's neighbouring countries, especially those in the Gulf region that have a US military presence. In the event of a swift Iranian response, these nations, as well as Israel, would be instantly at risk, even if they are not directly involved, which could lead to a broader conflict that extends beyond Iran and the US.

The US also has its limitations. President Trump has issued warnings to Iranian authorities against using force against protesters, and during the peak of the protests, he assured Iranians that support was on the way. These statements were widely disseminated within Iran and created anticipation among demonstrators.

Both parties are cognizant of the larger geopolitical landscape.

President Trump is aware that Iran's military capabilities have been diminished since the 12-day conflict last summer, while Tehran recognizes that Trump is hesitant to engage in a prolonged and large-scale conflict.

This mutual understanding may offer some comfort, but it also carries the risk of misinterpretation, as each side may overestimate its own influence or misjudge the intentions of the other, potentially leading to dangerous miscalculations.

A delicate balance is essential for Trump, as he seeks a outcome that can be perceived as a success without pushing Iran towards further oppression or instability.

Iranian leaders face a challenge in terms of timing and public perception, as their traditional approach of delayed, symbolic responses may no longer be effective in restoring deterrence and maintaining control amid the recent wave of unrest that has shaken the country.

A swift response from Iran, however, would significantly raise the stakes, increasing the likelihood of miscalculations that could draw in other regional players and escalate the conflict.

As both sides navigate a high-pressure situation with limited options, the protracted game of brinkmanship may be reaching a critical juncture, where the consequences of misjudging the situation would have far-reaching impacts, affecting not only governments but also millions of ordinary Iranians and the broader regional community.