Netanyahu, Trump discussed possibility of renewing strikes against Iran before elections - report

A renewed US-Israeli strike campaign would mean American and Israeli forces launching military attacks against Iran. The reported targets would include nuclear facilities and military sites. The issue matters because renewed fighting could alter regional security and affect elections in both countries.

The article gives a specific example of possible preparation. Sources said the Israel Defense Forces and US Central Command were on alert and finalizing plans. One US official said Trump told Netanyahu to “go ahead and get ready,” although the official stressed that this was not a firm order to restart operations.

The plan remained uncertain. Netanyahu reportedly argued that Iran was rebuilding nuclear capacity. Trump publicly said a decision would come “very soon,” while a White House official denied discussions about resuming the war and said the US would not attack Iran before the midterm elections. The campaign therefore remained a possibility, not an announced operation.

The decision would center on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump. Netanyahu reportedly raised the possibility of renewed strikes, while Trump was weighing whether to approve American participation. Their governments would also shape the decision through political, economic, and military advice.

The military actors named in the report include the Israel Defense Forces and US Central Command, or CENTCOM. Both were reportedly on alert and preparing in case Trump ordered attacks. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and CENTCOM leadership were described as especially strong supporters of resuming the war. Other Trump administration officials reportedly preferred continued pressure without strikes.

The final choice was unresolved. One Israeli official said Trump first appeared willing, then became hesitant. Another US official said he remained on the fence. The White House disputed that the leaders had discussed restarting the war, while Netanyahu’s office confirmed regular contact but gave no details.

Renewed military operations could affect two elections. Israel’s Knesset elections were scheduled for the end of October. US midterm elections were scheduled for early November. The close timing means a new conflict could become an important political issue in both countries.

For example, an operation launched before voting could change the public debate around national security and government leadership. In Israel, Netanyahu’s decision-making could become part of the election campaign. In the United States, Trump’s choice between military action and continued pressure could influence discussion before the midterms. The article does not predict a specific electoral result.

The timing remained politically sensitive because Trump’s position was unsettled. Some officials said he was hesitant or still on the fence. A White House official said Trump had stated that the United States would not attack Iran before the midterms. Trump nevertheless said a decision on Iran would come “very soon,” leaving the possibility unresolved.

If the United States and Israel resumed attacks, the immediate consequence would be renewed military operations against Iran. The reported targets include nuclear and military sites. Such action could also make the conflict a major issue before Israel’s Knesset elections and America’s midterm elections, both scheduled within weeks of each other.

The article describes competing political effects. Netanyahu reportedly presented Iran’s rebuilding nuclear capacity as a reason to strike. Some officials supported stronger action, while much of the Trump administration favored economic and political pressure. That divide could intensify if Trump approved operations. A White House official, however, said the US would not attack Iran before the midterms.

The military situation was already being prepared for, according to sources. The IDF and CENTCOM were on alert and completing plans. Yet there was no firm commitment to restart operations. Trump said the next decision would come “very soon,” so the forward outcome depended on whether he chose military action or continued pressure.

Iran’s nuclear program makes relations with Israel and the United States conflict-prone because nuclear capacity is treated as a major security concern. Israel may fear that Iran could eventually gain a capability threatening its security. The United States may also seek to prevent nuclear proliferation and protect its regional interests. These broader points are established background, not details explained in the article.

The article’s concrete example is Netanyahu’s reported argument that Iran was trying to rebuild nuclear capacity. Senior US officials said he cited those alleged efforts as the reason to launch new strikes. The possible operation would target Iranian nuclear and military sites, linking the nuclear issue directly to military planning.

The current dispute remained unsettled. Some US officials supported renewed attacks, while much of the administration favored economic and political pressure. Trump said he would decide “very soon.” The White House denied that the leaders had discussed resuming the war and said the US would not attack before the midterms.

Governments have alternatives to military strikes, including economic sanctions, diplomatic talks, political pressure, and efforts to limit access to money or technology. Sanctions can raise the cost of disputed policies without immediate combat. Diplomacy can seek agreements, inspections, or limits through negotiation. These tools can be slower than attacks but may reduce the risk of wider war.

The article gives economic pressure as the main alternative under discussion. One US official said the administration believed “economic choking” was working better and better and argued for continuing it. This approach works by pressuring Iran’s economy and government rather than directly attacking nuclear or military sites. The article does not identify specific sanctions or diplomatic proposals.

The choice was still contested. Pete Hegseth and CENTCOM leadership reportedly favored resuming the war, while much of the administration preferred pressure. Trump remained undecided, despite saying Iran had no economy and 300% inflation. He said the next decision would come “very soon.”

Inflation is a sustained increase in the prices of goods and services. As prices rise, each unit of money buys less. Extremely high inflation can make everyday costs change rapidly and make it difficult for households, businesses, and governments to plan. These effects are established economic background and are not explained in the article itself.

A government facing severe inflation may struggle to pay workers, soldiers, and suppliers because its money loses value. Businesses may avoid long-term contracts, while people may rush to spend money before prices rise further. The article provides Trump’s claim that Iran had 300% inflation and was not paying its troops or anyone else. It does not independently verify those claims.

Such conditions can weaken government authority if public services deteriorate and confidence falls. They can also increase pressure for economic or political change. In this report, Trump used Iran’s alleged economic crisis to describe the country as “failed,” while officials debated whether pressure or military action should come next.