Israel will hold parliamentary elections on October 27, while the United States will hold midterm elections on November 3. Netanyahu's tough stance and push for military action against Iran are aimed at winning electoral support; meanwhile, Trump, concerned that rising oil prices could hurt the Republican Party's prospects, has been sending mixed signals about going to war.
While tightening control over the Strait of Hormuz and warning of retaliation, Iran has also signaled its willingness to resume diplomatic negotiations, seeking to raise the cost for the United States and Israel of resorting to military action. Following the elections, whether the U.S. and Israel will restart military operations has become the central issue.
As the U.S. and Israeli elections draw near, the prospect of a renewed military campaign against Iran has once again come into focus, tightening tensions in the Middle East and raising risks to energy supplies from the Persian Gulf. According to Xinhua News Agency, Israel will hold parliamentary elections on October 27, while the United States will head to the polls for its midterm elections on November 3. With both contests fast approaching, the U.S., Israel, and Iran have all simultaneously signaled both resolve and restraint.
According to reports, Iran has begun preparing for a new round of U.S. airstrikes and is reportedly planning retaliatory strikes against multiple targets, including Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Sources familiar with the matter indicate that the period between the conclusion of the U.S. midterm elections and the inauguration of the new Congress in early January could be a particularly high-risk phase in the ongoing conflict. Meanwhile, Brent crude oil futures have risen by more than 80% year-to-date, driving up U.S. gasoline prices and placing mounting pressure on living costs—challenges that are weighing on the Republican Party's electoral prospects.
Analysts believe that if hostilities resume, the situation could become even more complicated than it was before the previous ceasefire. Aslı Aydıntaşbaş, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, stated that current indications suggest that fighting may restart, accompanied by a new round of large-scale airstrikes, though the exact timing remains unclear. Meanwhile, Ali Vaez, a Middle East expert at the International Crisis Group, pointed out that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu might view a war against Iran as a way to ease domestic political pressures, but military action could also further undermine their political prospects.
Military deployments continue to advance, and the risk of escalation is rising.
Recent military developments indicate that the United States is keeping options open for possible further action. According to reports, the Trump administration has dispatched a third carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf and deployed more than 10,000 sailors and Marines, expanding the operational options available to U.S. commanders. Defense Secretary Mark Esper visited Israel this week without prior notice and met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, just days before Israel's general election. Reports also suggest that some U.S. military bases in the Middle East, which had previously come under Iranian retaliation, have adjusted their personnel deployments.
According to Xinhua News Agency, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has recently adopted a hardline stance on the Iranian issue, even claiming that he has instructed the Israeli military and intelligence agencies to overthrow the Iranian regime and that Israel will act alone if necessary, even without U.S. support. Meanwhile, Israeli media reported on the 21st that dozens of Israeli fighter jets and aerial refueling aircraft flew over Syrian and Iraqi airspace earlier this week, approaching the Iranian border before turning back. This move is believed to have been intended to provoke Iran's air defenses into opening fire, thereby providing a pretext for striking Iran.
On the other hand, senior Israeli military officials have adopted a cautious stance; Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot stated there is no need to strike Iran before the upcoming elections. Recently, opposition leader Yair Lapid also voiced his opposition to an attack on Iran and criticized Prime Minister Netanyahu for exploiting the issue to gain electoral advantage. Analysts note that polls show Netanyahu's camp currently trailing in support, and his tough rhetoric on Iran—along with hints of seeking war—is aimed at bolstering his party's prospects. However, without U.S. military action against Iran, the Israeli Defense Forces lack the capacity to sustain a large-scale conflict on their own.
From the U.S. side, Trump explicitly stated on the 8th that he would not launch an attack on Iran before the midterm elections. However, on the 18th, he publicly endorsed Netanyahu's re-election, saying he hoped to join forces with him in countering Iran. On the 23rd, at a campaign rally, Trump also suggested that he might launch another small-scale "epic fury" military operation against Iran.
Analysts believe that Trump's approval ratings have plummeted due to the war he launched against Iran, which drove up oil prices. They fear that restarting hostilities before the election could push oil prices even higher, weighing on his Republican Party's prospects. At the same time, however, he needs to signal to conservatives his resolve to address the Iranian issue, which is why he has been making seemingly contradictory statements on the prospect of going to war with Iran.
Iran ramps up its military preparations, raising risks in the Strait of Hormuz.
According to reports citing a source familiar with the Iranian leadership's thinking, Iran is preparing for a potential new round of military confrontation around the time of the U.S. midterm elections and is considering retaliatory strikes against multiple targets across the Middle East. The source also stated that the way out of the current stalemate lies in reaching an agreement that would allow both sides to claim they have achieved tangible results.
According to Xinhua News Agency, in response to the conflicting rhetoric from the United States and Israel, Iran has sent out two key signals. In the face of U.S. and Israeli threats of another war, Iranian Defense Minister Amir Hatami stated on the 19th that Iran is preparing for conflict. That same day, IRGC spokesman Brigadier General Ramezan Zirah said that seven major undersea fiber-optic cables pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a fact the enemy should be aware of—remarks widely interpreted as implying that Iran could sabotage these cables if attacked. Tehran has also reportedly issued an ultimatum to countries in the Middle East: should hostilities between the U.S. and Iran reignite, these nations must cease all support for Washington.
Meanwhile, shipping and maritime security officials report that Iranian attacks near the Strait of Hormuz have increased in both frequency and severity compared to the early stages of the conflict, with the weapons employed expanding from attack drones to guided missiles. Despite some progress by the U.S. military in escorting commercial vessels, the associated risks to shipping remain unabated.
According to Xinhua News Agency, Iran has tightened its control over the Strait of Hormuz. In recent days, several oil tankers have been attacked or struck mines while attempting to pass through the strait. On the 23rd, the UK's Maritime Trade Operations stated that vessel traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, as tracked by the agency, is down by roughly 70 percent compared with pre-conflict levels, and the maritime security threat level in the area remains "severe." Meanwhile, Iran's Tasnim news agency quoted informed sources on the 23rd as saying that if the U.S. military once again uses air power to support oil smuggling through the strait, Iran will respond "directly and more decisively."
Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote in the British Financial Times on the 21st that, should there be evidence demonstrating the U.S. side's genuine desire to reach a just and dignified settlement that would bring the conflict to a permanent end, Iran is willing to give diplomacy another chance. However, he also voiced his distrust of the United States, warning that if Washington once again opts for military action, it will suffer an even greater strategic defeat.
According to Xinhua News Agency, citing analysts, Iran is seeking to drive up oil prices by tightening its control over the strait, leaving Trump no chance to ease electoral pressure. Tehran's tough rhetoric aims to deter the U.S. and Israel from recklessly restarting hostilities; at the same time, by signaling a willingness to negotiate, it both occupies the moral high ground and prevents Trump from blaming Iran for the lack of progress in U.S.-Iran talks during the campaign.
Energy supply risks are intensifying, and rising oil prices are adding electoral pressure.
The risks to energy supplies in the Persian Gulf have already been reflected in global energy markets. Brent crude oil futures have risen by more than 80% year-to-date, while U.S. gasoline prices have followed suit, putting upward pressure on consumers' living costs and casting a shadow over the Republican Party's prospects in the midterm elections.
In a report released on Thursday, Bloomberg Economics analysts Dina Esfandiary, Ziad Daoud, and Becca Wasser noted that the current situation in the Middle East bears striking similarities to the period preceding the U.S.-Iran war that erupted in February this year. The report argues that factors such as the approaching U.S. and Israeli elections, severe disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran's increasingly hardline stance have not diminished the risk of another escalation.
Domestic public opinion is also putting pressure on the Trump administration. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center from September 28 to October 4 found that more than two-thirds of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of the Iran conflict, and about half of respondents expect the hostilities to last for more than a year.
Diplomatic negotiations have made limited progress, and the post-election situation remains uncertain.
At present, the prospects for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict remain uncertain. This week, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif wrote in the Financial Times that Iran is willing to once again pursue diplomatic channels if the United States demonstrates a genuine willingness to seek a just and dignified solution. However, he also noted that there is currently little reason to expect progress in negotiations.
According to Xinhua News Agency, experts believe that the campaigns for two elections—particularly the U.S. midterm elections—have kept the U.S., Israel, and Iran in a state of "cold peace." It is unlikely that tensions in Iran will escalate before the vote, but the post-election trajectory remains difficult to predict.
According to multiple U.S. media reports, the U.S. and Israeli militaries have already drawn up specific plans to launch another strike against Iran after the U.S. midterm elections, with the main question being whether Trump will approve it. Public opinion holds that, once the elections are over and domestic political constraints in the United States ease, the likelihood of a U.S.-Israeli military action against Iran will increase. If Trump believes that the current pressure strategy is unlikely to compel Iran to compromise, he may well choose to reignite hostilities, at which point Israel would very likely follow suit.
However, there is still room for diplomatic negotiations. According to Xinhua News Agency, past military engagements have demonstrated that large-scale military strikes cannot bring Iran to its knees. With U.S. and Israeli ammunition stocks now critically low and U.S. bases in the Middle East suffering heavy losses, any renewed use of force against Iran would be even less likely to achieve its objectives. Military action not only fails to resolve underlying tensions but also heightens the risk of the situation spiraling out of control; diplomatic dialogue and a political settlement remain the fundamental path to a ceasefire and an end to hostilities.
Bradley Bowman, a foreign policy and defense expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, also believes that Trump would be better off continuing to advance the existing strategy. With room still available for diplomatic efforts and economic pressure, restarting military operations could entail additional risks.
Edited by melody