The Pentagon is deploying USS Gerald R. Ford to the Middle East, creating a rare two-carrier presence in the region as tensions with Iran rise and questions swirl about possible U.S. military action.

The Ford will reinforce USS Abraham Lincoln already operating in the theater, significantly expanding American airpower at a moment of heightened regional uncertainty.

While officials have not announced imminent action, the dual-carrier presence increases the Pentagon’s flexibility — from deterrence patrols to sustained strike operations — should diplomacy falter.

The largest aircraft carrier in the world

The Gerald R. Ford is the largest and most advanced aircraft carrier ever built.

Commissioned in 2017, the nuclear-powered warship stretches more than 1,100 feet and displaces more than 100,000 tons of water. It serves as a floating air base that can operate in international waters without relying on host-nation approval — a key advantage in politically sensitive theaters.

Powered by two nuclear reactors, the ship has virtually unlimited range and endurance and is designed to serve for decades as the backbone of U.S. naval power projection.

WORLD’S LARGEST AIRCRAFT CARRIER HEADS TO MIDDLE EAST AS IRAN NUCLEAR TENSIONS SPIKE DRAMATICALLY

How much airpower does it carry?

A typical air wing aboard the Ford includes roughly 75 aircraft, though the exact mix depends on mission requirements.

Those aircraft can include F/A-18 Super Hornets, stealth F-35C Joint Strike Fighters, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare jets, E-2D Hawkeye early warning aircraft and MH-60 helicopters.

In a potential conflict with Iran, several of those platforms would be central. 

The F-35C is designed to penetrate contested airspace and carry out precision strikes against heavily defended targets. The Growler specializes in jamming enemy radar and communications — a critical capability against Iran’s layered air defense systems. 

The E-2D extends surveillance hundreds of miles, helping coordinate air and missile defense.

Together, they give commanders options ranging from deterrence patrols to sustained strike operations.

Built for higher combat tempo

What separates the Ford from earlier carriers is its ability to generate more sorties over time.

Instead of traditional steam catapults, it uses an electromagnetic aircraft launch system, or EMALS, allowing aircraft to launch more smoothly and at a faster pace. The system is designed to reduce stress on jets and increase operational tempo.

The ship also features advanced arresting gear and a redesigned flight deck that allows more aircraft to be staged and cycled efficiently.

In a high-intensity scenario — particularly one involving missile launches or rapid escalation — the ability to launch and recover aircraft quickly can be decisive.

How it compares to the Lincoln

While both the Ford and the Abraham Lincoln are 100,000-ton, nuclear-powered supercarriers capable of carrying roughly 60 aircraft to 75 aircraft, they represent different generations of naval design.

The Lincoln is a Nimitz-class carrier commissioned in 1989 and part of a fleet that has supported decades of operations in the Middle East. The Ford is the Navy’s next-generation carrier and the lead ship of its class.

The key differences are efficiency and output. 

The Ford was built to generate a higher sustained sortie rate using its electromagnetic launch system, along with a redesigned flight deck and upgraded power systems. In practical terms, both ships bring substantial strike capability — but the Ford is designed to launch and recover aircraft faster over extended operations, giving commanders greater flexibility if tensions escalate.

IRAN SIGNALS NUCLEAR PROGRESS IN GENEVA AS TRUMP CALLS FOR FULL DISMANTLEMENT

How it defends itself

The Ford does not sail alone. It operates as the centerpiece of a carrier strike group that typically includes guided-missile destroyers, cruisers and attack submarines.

Those escort ships provide layered air and missile defense, anti-submarine protection and additional strike capability.

The carrier itself carries defensive systems including Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles, Rolling Airframe Missiles and the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System — designed to intercept incoming threats at close range.

That defensive posture is especially relevant in the Middle East.

Iran has invested heavily in anti-ship ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, armed drones, naval mines and fast-attack craft operated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Gulf region presents a dense and complex threat environment, even for advanced U.S. warships.

Why two carriers matter

With both the Ford and the Lincoln in theater, commanders gain more than just added firepower. Two carriers allow the U.S. to sustain a higher tempo of operations, distribute aircraft across multiple areas or maintain a continuous presence if one ship needs to reposition or resupply.

Dual-carrier deployments are relatively uncommon and typically coincide with periods of heightened regional tension.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The timing — as negotiations with Tehran continue — underscores the strategic message. Carriers are often deployed not only to fight wars, but to prevent them.

By positioning both ships in the region, Washington is signaling that if diplomacy falters, military options will already be in place.

Where are the statesmen when the state is under siege by the current head of state?

I’ve been mulling that question, hardly for the first time, but on three occasions just in the last few days.

On Monday, the federal holiday celebrating George Washington’s birth, former President George W. Bush posted an essay on the first U.S. president as part of a civic project commemorating the nation’s 250th year. Simply by hailing Washington for traits that Donald Trump utterly lacks — humility, integrity, dignity, self-restraint, willingness to forfeit power — the piece was widely read as a sneak attack on the current president. Bush never named Trump. He thus maintained his years-long, stupefying silence about the man who’s trashed him, his family, his party, his legacy PEPFAR program and, most of all, his country.

As Jonathan V. Last wrote for the right-of-center, anti-Trump Bulwark, if Bush’s words were a veiled attack on Trump, “the veil is so powerful that even light can’t escape it.”

Bush’s essay came two days after former President Obama finally responded to Trump’s week-old racist post that caricatured the first Black president and his wife as apes, thereby mainlining into the body politic one of the most toxic tropes against Black Americans. Asked about it in a podcast interview, Obama was, as usual, too cool. He called Trump’s behavior “deeply troubling” and said “there doesn’t seem to be any shame about this among people who used to feel like you had to have some sort of decorum and a sense of propriety and respect for the office.”

But, like Bush, he never named Trump. And it’s not even clear that Obama was referring to him. Certainly Trump never was one of those who, as Obama put it, “used to feel … some sort of decorum and a sense of propriety and respect for the office.”

Then there was the third trigger for my musings about America’s M.I.A. statesmen.

On Friday — ahead of the holiday honoring Washington, who as the first president and military commander established the indispensable tradition of a nonpartisan military — Trump yet again violated Washington’s precedent. At Ft. Bragg in North Carolina, he essentially pushed uniformed young troops to violate the military codes enshrining Washington’s legacy of nonpartisanship. Trump treated them like props at a MAGA rally, lauding Republican candidates and officeholders on hand, mocking past presidents and urging the troops to vote Republican in November.

“You have to vote for us,” the commander in chief ordered them.

This is unprecedented, except by Trump himself. In October, he prodded sailors at Norfolk, Va., to boo “Barack Hussein Obama.” In September, he told commanders summoned from around the world that the fight is here at home, a “war from within” American cities. In June, also at Ft. Bragg, Trump damned Democrats and sold MAGA merch, over Army objections.

There’s a darn good reason for the wall that Washington built between the military and civilian government. As the Army Field Manual instructs troops: “Nonpartisanship assures the public that our Army will always serve the Constitution and our people loyally and responsively.” Not just Republicans, and not just Trump.

But as multiple officers told the website Military.com, “holding troops to account when goaded by the president, who is ultimately the boss, would be impossible.” Commanders themselves are mute because, after all, Trump is the commander in chief. They’ve watched as one Pentagon purge has followed another, starting with Trump firing the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation’s top military officer. He chose instead an officer who, he often claims, once donned a MAGA cap and said, “I love you, sir. … I’ll kill for you, sir.”

It’s understandable that active-duty officers don’t make a stand. But what about America’s roughly 7,500 retired generals and admirals? As veteran ML Cavanaugh wrote in the Los Angeles Times after Trump’s Ft. Bragg performance last year, “The military profession’s nonpartisan ethic is at a breaking point.” Sure, individuals have spoken out. But as the military knows better than anyone, there’s strength in numbers.

It’s past time for a large, united front of veteran commanders to challenge Trump. Why wait for him to make good on his talk of invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy troops at the polls in this midterm election year, based on trumped-up conspiracies about Democrats’ fraud?

You know who could give the veteran and active commanders some political cover? The former commanders in chief.

Even more conspicuous than the brass by their silence and virtual invisibility in the face of Trump’s assaults — on the rule of law, civil rights, elections, foreign alliances and America’s global reputation — are the nation’s four living former presidents: Democrats Joe Biden, Obama and Bill Clinton, and Republican Bush.

It’s past time for the not-so-fab four to come together to publicly demand that Trump honor the oath of office that each man took, and to school the electorate on the many ways in which he’s dishonoring it — including by continuing to justify his refusal to peacefully transfer power in 2021. But each man is so observant of the norm that former presidents should not publicly criticize the incumbent one — again, a precedent from George Washington — that they self-muzzle.

This is Americans’ quandary in these Trump times: Presidents and high-ranking veterans who could speak truth to power are so constrained by their devotion to norms and traditions that they won’t confront a president who’s daily shattering the norms, traditions and laws that form the foundation of this democratic nation.

“This is the master alarm flashing for our democracy,” Sen. Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat and veteran, said last week of Trump’s targeting of him and other critics.

That takes us back to my original question: Where are the statesmen to answer that alarm?

Answer: They’re following ordinary rules despite these extraordinary times. And they must stop.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

MANCHESTER, N.H. – Former Transportation Secy. Pete Buttigieg tops the list of potential 2028 Democratic presidential contenders in a new poll conducted in New Hampshire, which has traditionally held the first primary in the race for the White House for over a century.

Twenty percent of Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire said they would vote for Buttigieg if the 2028 presidential nomination contest was held today. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York were tied for second at 15%, with former Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democrats’ 2024 nominee, and Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona each at 10%, with everyone else in single digits.

The University of New Hampshire Survey Center poll was released Thursday, a couple of hours before Buttigieg arrived in New Hampshire to campaign with Democrats running in this year’s midterm elections.

Asked about the survey by Fox News Digital, Buttigieg noted,” I’m not on any ballot right now.”

EARLY MOVES ALREADY WELL UNDERWAY IN 2028 WHITE HOUSE RACE

“Obviously it feels good to be well received,” added Buttigieg, who made plenty of friends in the Granite State as he came in close second in the 2020 New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary, slightly behind Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Buttigieg’s stop in New Hampshire was his third in an early voting state in the Democratic nominating calendar since stepping down as Transportation secretary following the end of former President Biden’s administration, following trips last year to South Carolina and Iowa. While he mostly avoids 2028 talk, Buttigieg has said he would consider what he brings “to the table” in regards to another White House run.

As he kicked off a three-day swing in key New England swing state, Buttigieg teamed up with Rep. Chris Pappas, the clear frontrunner for the Democratic Senate nomination in the race to succeed retiring Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a fellow Democrat. Shaheen’s seat is a top GOP target in the midterms.

Later Thursday, Buttigieg joined the state’s other Democratic House member, Rep. Maggie Goodlander. And he was scheduled to hold more events on Friday and Saturday, including a grassroots mobilization event that was expected to draw some top New Hampshire supporters from his 2020 presidential campaign.

Buttigieg is heading next week to battleground Nevada, and a source familiar told Fox News Digital Buttigieg has plans to campaign for candidates in Ohio, Georgia and Pennsylvania in the weeks ahead.

“I’m a big believer in going everywhere across the media landscape and geographically. Some are well known places on the political map. Some are a little bit off the beaten path. All of them deserve attention,” Buttigieg told Fox News Digital.

NEWSOM’S UPCOMING STOP IN KEY PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY STATE SPARKS MORE 2028 BUZZ

He added that he’ll “continue to go wherever I think I can be useful in elevating attention to issues and working with candidates I believe in and Chris Pappas is a great example of a candidate I am proud to be supporting and speaking up for.”

Newsom will be next up in New Hampshire.

The California governor’s tour for his new book, “Young Man in a Hurry,” will bring him to Portsmouth, New Hampshire on March 5. It will be his first stop in the state in two years.

Newsom grabbed headlines this past weekend, as he was one of a handful of potential Democratic presidential contenders to speak at the high-profile Munich Security Conference in Germany.

TRUMP HAMMERS AOC MUNICH STUMBLES AS ‘NOT A GOOD LOOK FOR THE UNITED STATES’

Ocasio-Cortez was among the other Democrats in Munich. But the progressive champion, who has long been laser focused on affordability and other domestic issues, has faced intense criticism for nearly a week over a gaffe in Munich, when she asked during a panel discussion whether the U.S. should send troops to defend Taiwan from a possible invasion by China.

The four-term lawmaker appeared to stall for nearly 20 seconds before offering that the U.S. should try to avoid reaching a clash with China over Taiwan.

Social media posts on the right slammed her for offering up a world salad.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

But it wasn’t just Republicans who critiqued Ocasio-Cortez.

A veteran Democratic strategist who asked to remain anonymous to speak more freely told Fox News Digital, “It is abundantly clear that AOC is not ready for prime time given her remarks in Europe.”