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 the asset crash this time is more severe.

A few hours ago, Trump and the Iranian side began exchanging harsh words. Meanwhile, there are rumors circulating in the community that the U.S. aircraft carrier "Lincoln" and its strike group stationed in the Middle East have entered a "full ship blackout" communication interruption status, indicating that actions against Iran may be imminent.

All financial market investors are on edge.

First, let's look at the U.S. stock market. The Nasdaq 100 quickly fell by 2%, the S&P 500 dropped over 1%, and the Dow Jones also suffered a decline of 0.5%. The assets most severely hit are those highly correlated with risk appetite; cryptocurrency stocks were almost ground into the dirt. MSTR dropped nearly 10%, COIN fell over 4%, and HOOD, SBET, BMNR, and CRCL all saw significant pullbacks.

The so-called safe-haven assets, gold and silver, are also declining. Spot gold fell below three hundred-dollar thresholds in just half an hour, crashing down over 400 dollars from its high, now reported around 5155 dollars. Silver was even more dramatic, plunging 8% in a single day, dropping from 121 dollars to just over 108 dollars.

The cryptocurrency market also couldn't escape. As soon as the U.S. stock market opened, Bitcoin began to decline, sliding from 88,000 dollars to around 83,000 dollars; Ethereum briefly fell below 2800 dollars, SOL lost 118 dollars, and BNB also dropped below 865 dollars.

This indicates that global capital has already assumed a worse scenario: war is about to begin.

What the U.S. Prepared Before the Last "Rough Action"

First, lay the cards on the table, then decide whether to flip the table. This seems to be the consistent approach of the U.S. government.

Looking back at the recent actions against Venezuela, we can see a series of signals from the U.S. before the formal attack: weeks before launching a series of attacks on Venezuelan vessels, the U.S. had amassed a large amount of military assets in the Caribbean. The official explanation at the time was that these vessels were suspected of smuggling drugs into the U.S., but no clear evidence was ever presented. However, the real facts are well known: on January 3, U.S. forces directly intervened and took Venezuelan President Maduro from Caracas.

It is said that the U.S. aircraft carriers were already in place at that time, typically entering the designated sea area 5 to 7 days before a formal action, with only waiting for a "suitable time" left.

Before the attack on Iran in June 2025, the rhythm was exactly the same. Days before the action began, the media captured unusual movements of U.S. military equipment. On June 21, the U.S. suddenly deployed six B-2 stealth bombers to Guam, later downplaying it as a feint to maintain surprise advantage. But those familiar with U.S. military operational logic understand that such strategic assets are never casually "exercised." Meanwhile, two carrier strike groups led by the USS Carl Vinson and USS Lincoln had already been pre-deployed in the Arabian Sea. The Aegis-class destroyer USS Thomas Hudner was also dispatched to the eastern Mediterranean.

Thus, the deployment of aircraft carriers at sea, the mobilization of strategic bombers and heavy strike capabilities, and the deployment of air defense systems are three major characteristics of U.S. military deployments before conflicts.

Now, similar signals are gradually reappearing.

Is a Second Aircraft Carrier on the Way?

"We have a large fleet heading in that direction; perhaps we won't need to use it," Trump said. Following this, the U.S. Central Command confirmed on social media platform X that a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the USS Lincoln, has been dispatched to the Middle East.

This carrier left San Diego last November and had been on a mission in the South China Sea. Now, it has a new combat objective—Iran.

The Lincoln is one of the core assets of the U.S. Navy and is one of ten nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. It does not rely on diesel but is powered by a nuclear reactor, theoretically capable of operating for decades without refueling. The ship is equipped with highly advanced missile systems, radar, and sensors, making it a floating command center for combat.

Information about the USS Lincoln

The whereabouts of the Lincoln were originally highly classified, but because it had to pass through the Strait of Malacca, one of the busiest waterways in the world, it had to turn on its transponder to avoid collisions. This brief "lighting up" confirmed that it had crossed the Indian Ocean on January 23. Subsequently, the transponder was turned off, and its location disappeared again. However, based on its speed, it has essentially reached the vicinity of the combat zone and is in a standby state.

After passing through the Strait of Malacca, the transponder was turned off again, and the carrier disappeared from radar. The remaining information can only be estimated based on speed. But according to calculations, the Lincoln has now essentially arrived near the combat zone and is in position.

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

The USS George H.W. Bush set sail from the U.S. East Coast on January 13, and it is widely speculated that it may cross the Atlantic Ocean and enter the Mediterranean through the Strait of Gibraltar. While it cannot be ruled out that this is merely a training exercise, very few people truly believe this is a coincidence at this time. Most military analysts speculate that the purpose of the George H.W. Bush's deployment is to "escalate" the situation in the Middle East.

Map of the Middle East

Many military analysts agree: the truly "suitable" time to strike is likely after the second carrier strike group is in place. One aircraft carrier can certainly strike, but two mean air superiority, strike frequency, and margin for error will all be maximized. Since the best window for attacking Iran during the protests in early January has already passed, the difference between waiting a day and waiting a week is not significant. Rather than acting hastily, it is better to wait for the second carrier strike group to arrive, maximizing military strength in the Middle East before making a decisive move.

However, as of now, the Bush has not been spotted crossing the critical strait, and based on its speed, it has not yet fully entered a combat-ready position.

Speaking of aircraft carrier deployments, the air force is also not idle. The U.S. Air Force Central Command has announced a multi-day readiness exercise in its area of responsibility, covering over 20 countries in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. The term "exercise" itself is quite flexible.

Of course, where there is offense, there must be defense.

Especially regarding the U.S. protection of Israel. According to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. is also deploying "Patriot" and "THAAD" missile defense systems to the Middle East. The deployment of air defense systems often marks the beginning of a real war timetable. However, the specific timing is almost impossible for outsiders to know.

Some analyses even extend their gaze further: Trump's obsession with Greenland is not just about resources. It houses critical U.S. radar warning facilities, which are important nodes for preventing long-range ballistic missile attacks. Controlling these areas essentially opens up defensive depth for larger-scale conflicts.

Israel has clearly also entered the same timeline. On January 25, local time, the commander of the Israel Defense Forces Northern Command, Rafi Milo, publicly stated that the Israeli military is preparing for the chain reaction following potential U.S. military actions against Iran. Earlier, the Homeland reported that the Israeli military had raised its alert level in response to "possible attacks by the U.S. within days."

In this context, the true goals of the U.S. appear increasingly clear. If action is taken, the target is likely not just a limited strike but aimed directly at the Iranian regime itself. This is precisely why the U.S. emphasizes that "everything is ready." A single strike that fails would come at the cost of long-term attrition, which is a political risk that no U.S. administration is willing to bear.

Internal and External Pressures of the "Partial Shutdown" of the U.S. Government

Beyond military risks, pressure is also building domestically in the U.S.

The editor believes that the "partial shutdown" of the U.S. government before the end of the month is also one of the important reasons for today's decline.

Every fiscal year, the U.S. Congress must pass 12 appropriations bills. If they cannot reach an agreement, the government must shut down. The current temporary appropriations bill is set to expire on January 31, leaving Congress with only two working days. Informal voting in the Senate 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 informal voting results in the Senate indicate that the procedural vote held that day failed to advance the appropriations bill already passed by the House of Representatives.

The budget disagreements between the two parties mainly revolve around the Department of Homeland Security. The main event is that Minnesota, a long-time Democratic stronghold, was recently exposed to have one of the largest welfare fraud cases in U.S. history, involving as much as 9 billion dollars. For more details, see the related article: "Will the U.S. Government Shut Down Again, and Will the Crypto Market Be Hit?." Here, the editor will briefly outline the points of contention:

Many of the organizations involved are closely linked to the local Democratic political ecology. Evidence shows that a significant amount of the funds obtained through these welfare fraud organizations has flowed into Democratic campaign contributions.

Minnesota itself is also a highly immigrant state, with a large Somali immigrant population. The Minnesota Attorney General's office stated 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 topics of long-standing opposition between the Democratic and Republican parties, and is also a key policy commitment repeatedly emphasized by Trump and the Republican Party during the campaign.

As a result, Trump has intensified immigration enforcement in Minnesota. The sudden increase in enforcement has quickly led to severe consequences, with two incidents of federal immigration enforcement officers accidentally shooting and killing local residents, resulting in large-scale protests and riots, even prompting the deployment of the National Guard to maintain order. The Democratic Party quickly seized this opportunity, using the fatal shootings by ICE in Minnesota as ironclad evidence of the agency's out-of-control enforcement methods.

The logic of the Democratic Party is clear: ICE caused two deaths in Minnesota, which proves that the agency's enforcement methods have serious problems. Why should we continue to fund it without substantial reforms or strict limitations? The Democratic Party demands a reduction in the size of ICE or at least the addition of strict restrictions.

The Republican stance is sharply opposed: the Minnesota welfare fraud case involves 9 billion dollars, and most of the defendants are Somali, which precisely indicates the need to strengthen rather than weaken immigration enforcement. ICE is a key force in combating illegal immigration and welfare fraud and must be adequately funded.

The internal conflict has no resolution, and external risks are simultaneously escalating. Whether war will truly occur, no one can provide a definitive answer. But the editor hopes for world peace.