"Something Is Going to Happen Very Soon," Trump Said

US and Israeli forces have drawn up plans for renewed strikes on Iran after the US midterm elections, Haaretz reported on October 22, describing preparations without presidential approval. ^[1]

The account says the militaries have stepped up exercises, including flights over Iraq to rehearse strike maneuvers. Possible targets include Iranian energy infrastructure, nuclear facilities and missile and drone capabilities. ^[1]

Haaretz was relaying a New York Times account based on anonymous US officials and other people briefed on the deliberations. The plans and their timing have not been independently confirmed, and the White House has offered no public confirmation of an operation. ^[1]

President Donald Trump has not approved an attack and has rejected several proposals for a return to major combat this year, most recently in October, according to the account. Preparations could also serve as pressure on Tehran rather than lead to an order to strike. ^[1][3]

A White House official told the Times that the administration does not comment on military plans "that may or may not exist," according to Haaretz. That leaves the reported preparations short of an announced policy, even as the account describes increasingly specific military work. ^[1]

Two elections, different pressures

The proposed window follows Trump's public statement on October 8 that the United States would not attack Iran before the November 3 midterm elections. CNN reported that pledge from his Truth Social post and public comments. ^[2]

His later remarks were less precise. According to Haaretz, Trump said the United States was not negotiating with Iran and that "something is going to happen very soon, one way or another." He also said most people expected it to happen after the elections, without specifying which elections he meant. ^[1]

The US midterms decide control of Congress. A promise to hold off until the vote gives the calendar political weight, but it supplies neither an order to attack afterward nor a deadline for doing so.

The military timetable described by Haaretz also points toward early November. The US force involved would not be fully in place until then, according to the account. Longer hours of darkness over Iran were another factor in the proposed timing.

Officials nevertheless saw a small possibility of action before the US vote. ^[1]

Israel has its own, earlier election, scheduled for October 27. Haaretz reported that a defeat for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could leave him leading a caretaker government and make launching a war harder. ^[1]

The two political calendars therefore pull differently. The reported US window opens after November 3, while Netanyahu faces a vote before it. Neither election determines whether an operation happens, but both bear on who would authorize it and under what political conditions.

A short campaign, a large assumption

Some US planners believe a three-day campaign could cause enough economic damage to change Iran's position, according to the account relayed by Haaretz. That is their assessment of what military force might achieve, not an established result. ^[1]

The possible target list shows how broadly they are thinking. Energy infrastructure would put economic pressure alongside attacks on nuclear facilities and missile and drone capabilities. Some officials said refineries might be spared to avoid driving up gasoline prices. ^[1]

That calculation reaches beyond the battlefield: planners are reportedly weighing damage to Iran against the cost of fuel elsewhere. It also exposes the central gamble in the proposal. A campaign can be planned to last three days without its consequences being confined to three days.

Iranian officials have warned that a renewed attack would bring a broader response, including strikes on data centers and undersea communications cables, according to The Jerusalem Post. Those are threats, not actions, but they identify civilian communications infrastructure as a potential part of any escalation. ^[3]

The diplomatic picture is also unsettled. Trump's statement that the United States was not negotiating sits alongside accounts that some officials viewed the military preparations as leverage during negotiations. ^[1][3] The same preparations could support coercive diplomacy, using the threat of force to win concessions at the table, or an eventual operation, which makes exercises alone a poor guide to the final decision.

Haaretz also reported, citing US officials, that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth met Netanyahu in Israel that week to discuss new strikes. The reported meeting places the deliberations at a senior political level, while the account of Trump's repeated vetoes shows that senior discussion has not guaranteed approval. ^[1]

Planning has not settled the decision

The Daily Inference reported on October 13 that unnamed US officials described talks about possible joint attacks on Iranian nuclear and military sites. A White House official denied that Trump and Netanyahu had discussed resuming the war.

The latest account adds reported rehearsals, a broader possible target list and a post-midterm window to that earlier discussion. ^[1] Those details make the preparations more specific. They do not establish that Trump has changed his answer.

A separate dispute concerns an alleged Israeli operation earlier in October. The Jerusalem Post, citing its own sources in the Israel Defense Forces, said the military had not been planning to strike on October 10 and that officials had not issued the kinds of orders used before earlier conflicts. That dispute concerns an earlier episode, not independent verification or disproof of the newly reported plans. ^[3]

For now, the account's decisive outstanding step remains authorization from Trump. ^[1]