The Iran war's nuclear dimension dominates today's outlook: strikes on Natanz and near Dimona are driving emergency multilateral diplomacy, information warfare around radiation fears, and a cascade of European energy policy adjustments — while the destruction of Iran's conventional military signals a long-term pivot to asymmetric cyber capabilities.

I assess P=0.70, slightly above the military analyst's 0.68, based on converging operational and political signals. The historical precedent is strong: Operation Earnest Will (1987-88) demonstrated that the US formalizes escort missions when Gulf shipping faces direct military threats, and the current situation is at least as severe as that period. Multiple event chains support the operational necessity: the USS Tripoli deployment (confirmed at escalation stage, 7 clusters), confirmed shipping attacks near the UAE, and Japan's conditional minesweeping discussions all indicate allied naval coordination is intensifying. The Trump administration's 48-hour ultimatum on Hormuz has moved to 'aftermath' stage (stalled), meaning the deadline has expired without public resolution — this creates pressure for visible follow-through. However, several de-escalation signals temper my estimate: the House Speaker says the Iran mission is 'nearly complete,' US-Iran negotiation discussions are in the 'discussion' stage, and Iran has outlined conditions to end the war. If political momentum shifts toward ceasefire talks, a formal new naval mission announcement might be seen as escalatory and delayed. The 14-day window is tight for a formal announcement of a named operation (which requires interagency coordination, allied consultation, and Congressional notification). I weight the military readiness (assets deployed, precedent clear) against political uncertainty (possible de-escalation talks) and set P=0.70. Game Theory analysis supports this: the rational US move is to formalize escort operations to signal resolve while maintaining negotiating leverage.