TLDR: I don't think so with 2 snaps up
@pooods, I would guess that between what we have seen in Ukraine and the Caracas, that is not the issue. TBH we don't know and there is probably less than a dozen people in the country that have the full picture. They ain't talking and even if they did, I wouldn't believe them. I have seen too much from the government and wars to believe the company line or the opposition line either.
Here is what I believe: For the first time in my memory, the POTUS is using available legitimate means to achieve the goal of a non-nuclear Iran that is not the world's leader of sponsor of terrorism. IMHO it is a very simple long-term choice we face, prevent it or clean up afterwards. It may take a full-on invasion to do the former and it will definitely take a full-on invasion preceded by a nuclear strike for the latter.
I do believe that Trump is the first POTUS since at least WWII that has used every legitimate tool available (military, economics, cyber, diplomatic) to prevent a full-scale invasion. I know that some say things like we should arm their citizenry, how did that work last time? We tend to want long term broad results but only willing to tolerate short term action.
Since it's already TLDR let me add that the ships in the area are already conducting combat operations 24/7 and have been for months. They are trained for it, and it is their job. No job is without risk, and they volunteered for the risk. Launching a plane, missile, rocket and/or torpedo adds to that risk. That risk is minimal overall, but increases exponentially with live fire combat. They owe it to us to take those risks and we owe it them to make sure they have to do it only with a purpose.