It’s safe to say Iran has not been on anyone’s radar recently, except, apparently, the president’s. Many, if not most, Americans have no idea the U.S. military is about to launch an attack on Iran, much less the reason why.

Donald Trump, who rarely keeps even his most inane ideas to himself, said little publicly about a war. One of his few recent comments came on Thursday when he said “bad things will happen” if Iran doesn’t make a deal on its nuclear program within the next ten days.

While we all were paying attention to the increasingly disturbing revelations coming out of the Epstein files and Trump’s attempts to subvert the midterm elections, the president was quietly amassing a vast naval force in the Middle East, ready to attack Iran as soon as Saturday.

The aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, the largest warship ever built, is on its way to the Persian Gulf to join an existing fleet that includes another aircraft carrier, guided-missile destroyers, littoral combat ships, and submarines. The armada is stationed throughout the region, in the Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea.

This is the largest military buildup in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It could sustain a prolonged air war, unlike the one-and-done attack on Iran’s nuclear facility in June. “The number of fighter planes, aerial refuelers and surveillance planes that have arrived over the past three to four days is immense… It’s staggering,” Politico’s Paul McLeary wrote.

What’s also staggering is the White House’s almost complete black out of information about a possible war. Back on January 27 Trump did hint at what was to come, “There’s a beautiful armada, floating beautifully toward Iran right now.”

To be clear, the president cannot declare war. The Constitution gives that power to Congress. But when has the Constitution stopped this president from doing whatever he wants?

There is a lot more Trump has not done in the run-up to the possible attack on Iran. He has not informed Congress. He has not trotted out his national security team to explain why the U.S. needs to strike Iran now. He has not outlined what will happen after the strike. He has not explained what success would look like. Most importantly, he has not addressed the American people.

One of the most serious and somber decisions a president makes is when to send U.S. forces into battle. That decision comes with the obligation of explanation. The president apparently doesn’t think he is required to explain himself, nor does he believe he needs the consent of the American people.

Trump claims to be hoping for a diplomatic solution (a solution to what problem exactly?). American-Iranian diplomacy is tepid at best. The two sides met in Geneva earlier this week, reportedly to discuss Iran’s uranium enrichment program. According to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, there has been “a little bit of progress.” But the two sides are “still very far apart on some issues.”

Although neither the president nor the White House has articulated why, we can make some educated guesses: to finally destroy Iran’s nuclear program (though Trump declared it obliterated after the strike in June); to decimate Iran’s extensive missile force; or kill Iran’s military and political leaders, which would precipitate regime change.

According to CNN, the notoriously capricious Trump has been polling advisors, allies, and his friends at Fox “News” for advice. He could be bluffing, though moving a massive armada across the world would be a very expensive bluff.

And the risks are enormous.

Unlike the one-day strike on Iran’s nuclear facility in June or the quick capture of former Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, a war with Iran could escalate into a protracted regional conflict. Russia and China are allied with Iran and militia groups throughout the Middle East have long been financed by Tehran. Think Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas in Gaza.

War would mean a high likelihood of American casualties and the capture of U.S. service members. Faced with those realities, how long would Americans stomach a conflict with an unexplained purpose?

If an American strike results in the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, what is the plan? Who would replace him? It could leave a power vacuum that potentially would be worse than Khamenei.

Before a shot is fired, markets are already jittery at the prospect of war in the oil-rich region, with crude oil prices spiking. A rise in gasoline prices won’t be far behind.

Trump, whose poll numbers are already anemic, could deplete his isolationist MAGA base, which tolerated the Maduro capture and the one-and-done strike on Iran. An unprovoked and prolonged campaign in Iran would not go over well with folks who backed Trump because he promised not to get involved in foreign wars.

Trump’s massive naval buildup could result in one particularly worrisome unintended consequence. The fleet is so large and the possibility of catastrophic damage so great, the Iranians could decide they have nothing to lose. A desperate opponent has little incentive to show restraint.

Iran, of course, is not Venezuela. The country has a strategic and sizable arsenal of small and medium-range missiles that could cause serious damage to US bases, ships, and allies.

Khamenei took to social media to saber-rattle himself. “The US President constantly says that the US has sent a warship toward Iran. Of course, a warship is a dangerous piece of military hardware. However, more dangerous than that warship is the weapon that can send that warship to the bottom of the sea.” This post was accompanied by an AI-generated image of the USS Gerald R. Ford in an ocean grave.

Iran could also close the Strait of Hormuz, which would cripple the movement of oil in the Persian Gulf. Additionally, it could activate proxy terrorist cells across the globe.

“Iran’s military would likely shift into a form of suicidal aggression, launching whatever capabilities remain at its disposal before they are destroyed,” wrote Ali Bakir, a professor of international affairs at Qatar University.

Trump’s opaque approach to war may protect him in the short run from having to explain himself. In the long run, what he does about Iran and how he does it will weigh heavily on his legacy… and on our future.