SAEDNEWS: Former CENTCOM Commander Explains Reason for U.S. Military Presence in the Region: Would Trump Use the Military Option Against Iran?
According to the political desk of Saed News, the former commander of United States Central Command (CENTCOM) emphasized that he does not believe Donald Trump would necessarily resort to military action against Iran.
Frank McKenzie said in an interview with CBS News that despite the buildup of American military equipment, he “does not believe that President Donald Trump will inevitably use it against Iran.”
According to ISNA, he stressed that the presence of these military assets in the region is necessary to defend American resources and added: “I firmly believe he is his own man in these kinds of decisions, and I think ultimately he will arrive at some internal calculation. I do not believe he will be influenced merely by the flow of military equipment being sent to the region.”
An analysis of these statements suggests what some interpret as a visible retreat in U.S. military doctrine and a perceived victory for Iran’s strategy of “active deterrence.” The remarks can be examined from three key angles:
McKenzie’s comments can be seen as an explicit acknowledgment that the U.S. military presence in the region—contrary to media portrayals—no longer necessarily signals either the capability or the will to launch an attack. From this perspective, despite Trump’s confrontational rhetoric, he may have recognized that the cost of any military confrontation with Iran would far outweigh its potential benefits.
The “internal calculation” McKenzie referenced is viewed by some analysts as the result of Iran’s forceful actions on the ground, such as the missile response to Ain al-Asad Airbase, which they argue altered Washington’s strategic calculations.
A notable point in the former CENTCOM commander’s remarks is his emphasis that the military equipment is present to “defend American assets.”
In the past, U.S. aircraft carriers and fighter jets symbolized threat and offensive capability. Today, according to McKenzie, these assets are deployed primarily to ensure the survival and protection of American forces in the region. This rhetorical shift, supporters argue, indicates a change in the balance of power—moving the United States from the posture of “hunter” to that of “defender.”
The analysis also focuses on McKenzie’s assertion that Trump “is his own man” and not easily swayed by military currents. This may reflect a pragmatic recognition of Iran’s regional power. Entering into war with Iran, some argue, could have jeopardized Trump’s economic and political ambitions.
From this viewpoint, refraining from the military option is interpreted not as goodwill, but as a calculated response driven by concern over the consequences of a decisive Iranian retaliation.
From the perspective of supporters of the “resistance” discourse, these remarks are seen as evidence supporting the slogan “There will be no war.” When the highest-ranking former U.S. military official in the region acknowledges that a large military buildup does not necessarily mean war, they argue, it signals that Iran’s defensive capabilities and regional influence have effectively removed the military option from the table.
