Night of panic for risk assets, under what conditions would the United States go to war with Iran?

The fleet deployed by the United States to Iran is much larger than the one sent to Venezuela some time ago, which also means that this asset decline is even more ferocious. A few hours ago, Trump and Iran began to exchange harsh words frequently.
(Background summary: Trump “temporarily halts attack on Iran” but still deploys US troops: they assured me to stop persecuting protesters)
(Additional background: Trump ordered bombing of the Venezuelan capital! Bitcoin immediately dropped below 90,000 MGB, ETH held firm at 3100)

The fleet deployed by the United States to Iran is much larger than the one sent to Venezuela some time ago, which also means that this asset decline is even more ferocious.

A few hours ago, Trump and Iran began to exchange harsh words frequently. Meanwhile, rumors circulated that the US “Lincoln” aircraft carrier and its strike group in the Middle East have entered “full blackout” communication mode, indicating that actions against Iran may be imminent.

All financial market investors are holding their breath.

First, look at the US stock market. The Nasdaq 100 quickly expanded its decline to 2%, the S&P 500 fell over 1%, and the Dow Jones also couldn’t escape, dropping 0.5%. The hardest hit are assets highly tied to risk appetite, with cryptocurrency concept stocks almost being pressed to the ground and rubbed. MSTR once fell nearly 10%, COIN dropped over 4%, and HOOD, SBET, BMNR, CRCL all retreated sharply.

Safe-haven assets gold and silver also declined. Spot gold, within just half an hour, broke through three hundred-dollar levels consecutively, dropping over $400 from its high, currently around $5,155. Silver was even more dramatic, plunging 8% intraday from $121 to just over $108.

The crypto market couldn’t escape either. As soon as US stocks opened, Bitcoin started to decline, sliding from $88,000 to around $83,000; Ethereum briefly fell below $2,800, SOL lost the $118 mark, and BNB also dropped below $865.

This indicates that global funds are already assuming the worst scenario—war is about to begin.

Put the cards on the table first, then decide whether to flip the table. This seems to be the consistent approach of the US government.

Looking back at the last action against Venezuela, we can see a series of signals before the official attack: weeks before launching a series of attacks on Venezuelan ships, the US had already accumulated a large amount of military assets in the Caribbean. The official explanation at the time was that these ships were suspected of drug smuggling into the US, but no concrete evidence was ever presented. But everyone knows the real fact: on January 3rd, the US directly took action, taking Venezuelan President Maduro from Caracas.

It is also said that the US aircraft carrier was already in position at that time, usually 5 to 7 days before an official move, with core strike forces already in designated waters, waiting only for the “right moment.”

Before the attack on Iran in June 2025, the same rhythm was observed. Days before the operation, media captured abnormal movements of US military equipment. On June 21, the US suddenly deployed 6 B-2 stealth bombers to Guam, then casually explained it as a decoy to maintain surprise advantage. But those familiar with US military logic understand that such strategic assets are never casually “exercised.” Meanwhile, two carrier strike groups led by the Carl Vinson and Lincoln carriers had already been deployed in the Arabian Sea. The Arleigh Burke-class missile destroyer Thomas Hudner was also moved to the eastern Mediterranean.

From this, we see that the three main features of US military deployment before conflict are: carrier deployments at sea, air strategic bombers and heavy strike capabilities mobilization, and air defense system deployment.

And now, similar signals are being replayed bit by bit.

“We have a large fleet heading in that direction, maybe we don’t need to use it,” Trump said. Subsequently, the US Central Command confirmed on social platform X that a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the “Lincoln,” has been dispatched to the Middle East.

This carrier left San Diego last November, previously performing missions in the South China Sea. Now, it has a new combat purpose—Iran.

The Lincoln is one of the US Navy’s most core assets and one of ten nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. It is powered by a nuclear reactor, theoretically capable of continuous operation for decades without refueling. The ship is equipped with highly advanced missile systems, radars, and sensors, serving as a floating combat command center.

Lincoln Aircraft Carrier Information

The whereabouts of the Lincoln were originally highly classified, but because it had to pass through the Strait of Malacca, one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, it had to turn on its transponder to avoid collisions. This brief “lights-on” confirmed that it had already crossed the Indian Ocean on January 23. Afterwards, the transponder was turned off, and its position disappeared again. But based on its speed, it is now basically near the combat zone, in standby mode.

After passing through the Strait of Malacca, the transponder was turned off again, and the carrier disappeared from radar. The remaining estimate is based on speed calculations. Currently, the Lincoln has basically arrived near the combat zone, in position.

Meanwhile, a second carrier seems to be on the way.

The “George H. W. Bush” left the US East Coast on January 13, widely believed to be crossing the Atlantic via the Strait of Gibraltar into the Mediterranean. While it cannot be ruled out that this is just a routine exercise, few believe it is a coincidence at this time. Most military analysts speculate that the purpose of the Bush’s deployment is to “add fuel” to the Middle East situation.

Middle East Terrain

Many military analysts agree: the truly “appropriate” time to strike is likely after the second carrier battle group is in position. One carrier can fight, but two mean maximum control of air superiority, strike frequency, and fault tolerance. Since the optimal window for attacking Iran in early January has passed, the difference between waiting a day or a week is minimal. Instead of rushing to act, it’s better to wait until the second carrier battle group is in place, stacking the military strength in the Middle East to the maximum, then strike decisively.

But so far, the Bush has not been seen passing through the key strait. Based on speed, it has not yet fully entered combat readiness position.

After discussing carrier deployments, the air force is also not idle. The US Air Force Central Command has announced a multi-day combat readiness exercise covering over 20 Middle Eastern, Asian, and African countries. The term “exercise” itself is very flexible.

Of course, where there is attack, there is defense.

Especially US protection for Israel. According to the Wall Street Journal, the US is also reinforcing the Middle East with “Patriot” and “THAAD” missile defense systems. Once the air defense deployment is complete, the actual start of hostilities usually follows, but the specific timing is almost impossible for outsiders to know.

Some analysts even look further ahead: Trump has been obsessed with Greenland, not just for resources. There are US critical radar warning facilities there, key nodes to prevent distant ballistic missile strikes. Controlling these places essentially opens up a defensive depth for larger-scale conflicts.

Israel is obviously also on the same timeline. On January 25, local time, IDF Northern Commander Rafi Milo publicly stated that the Israeli military is preparing for a chain reaction after possible US military action against Iran. Earlier, the “National Land Report” cited defense sources saying that the IDF has raised its alert level across the board to respond to “possible US attacks within days.”

Against this background, the US’s true goal is becoming increasingly clear. If they act, the target is likely not just a limited strike but directly aimed at the Iranian regime itself. That’s why the US emphasizes “all preparations are complete.” If one strike fails, the cost is long-term exhaustion, a political risk no US administration wants to bear.

Beyond military risks, domestic pressure in the US is also mounting.

It is worth noting that the partial government shutdown before the end of the month is also a major reason for today’s market decline.

Every fiscal year, the US Congress must pass 12 appropriations bills. If they cannot agree, the government must shut down. The current temporary funding bill expires on January 31, leaving only two working days for Congress. The informal Senate vote has already shown that the procedural vote to advance the appropriations bill has failed, making a partial or full government shutdown almost a certainty.

Now, with only two working days left, the fact of a partial government shutdown is basically confirmed. The Senate’s informal vote results show that the procedural vote scheduled for that day failed to advance the appropriations bill passed by the House.

The main partisan disagreement is over the Department of Homeland Security. The key issue is: in Minnesota, a long-standing Democratic stronghold, one of the largest welfare fraud cases in US history was exposed recently, involving up to $9 billion. Here is a brief summary of the partisan dispute:

Many involved organizations are closely linked to local Democratic political networks. Evidence shows that much of the fraudulently obtained welfare funds flowed into Democratic campaign contributions.

Minnesota is also a highly immigrant state, with large Somali and other immigrant communities. The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office said that among the 92 defendants charged in this case, 82 are Somali Americans. This intertwines immigration enforcement, welfare distribution, and public safety issues, hitting the core long-standing conflicts between Democrats and Republicans, and also a key policy focus repeatedly emphasized by Trump and the GOP during campaigns.

Therefore, Trump has intensified immigration enforcement in Minnesota. The sudden increase in enforcement quickly led to serious consequences, including two incidents where federal immigration officers mistakenly shot and killed local residents. This sparked large-scale protests and riots, even involving the National Guard to maintain order. The Democrats quickly seized this opportunity, using the deadly shootings by ICE in Minnesota as evidence of the agency’s out-of-control law enforcement.

The Democrats’ logic is clear: ICE caused two deaths in Minnesota, proving serious problems with its law enforcement methods. Without substantial reforms and stricter restrictions, why should we continue funding it? Democrats call for downsizing ICE or at least imposing strict restrictions.

The Republicans’ stance is opposite: the $9 billion welfare fraud case in Minnesota, with most defendants being Somali, indicates the need to strengthen, not weaken, immigration enforcement. ICE is a key force in fighting illegal immigration and welfare fraud, and must be adequately funded.

The internal conflict yields no result, while external risks are rising simultaneously. Whether war will really happen remains uncertain. Let’s hope for world peace.