US and Israel develop plans to attack Iran after the midterms

Washington and Israel have reportedly developed plans for another attack on Iran. The possible campaign would follow months of military tension, diplomatic pressure, and preparations by both countries. The plans matter because they could reopen a conflict that has already disrupted energy markets, regional security, and U.S. military supplies.

The New York Times reported that U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth secretly met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a military base. Their discussions reportedly covered strikes on nuclear facilities, energy infrastructure, and missile and drone arsenals. Israel had already ordered preparations for a bombing campaign earlier in the month.

The timing remains uncertain. Trump previously rejected restarting hostilities before the November 3 midterms and has blocked renewed attacks several times. U.S. forces will not reach the desired regional deployment level until next month, while Israel’s election could also change Netanyahu’s ability or willingness to restart the war.

The proposed campaign would target several parts of Iran’s military and economic system. The article identifies nuclear facilities, energy infrastructure, and missile and drone arsenals. These targets matter because they combine long-term strategic capabilities with assets that support military operations and national economic activity.

The reported plans followed a secret meeting between U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a military base in Israel. The Financial Times had earlier reported that Netanyahu ordered his military to prepare a bombing campaign. That campaign was not carried out after Trump rejected renewed hostilities before the U.S. midterms.

The broader rationale is that Iran’s economy has been weakened enough for more bombing to force concessions. The article says this assumption has guided Washington throughout the conflict, alongside sanctions. However, Iran has not shown signs of yielding, and officials have threatened to respond against regional infrastructure and potentially digital systems.

The elections matter because both governments face political risks from restarting the war. Trump’s approval rating has fallen to roughly 34%, and the article says the conflict has been a major reason. Netanyahu is fighting for re-election, so a new campaign could affect his political survival and his ability to form a government.

Trump rejected restarting hostilities before the November 3 U.S. midterms and blocked possible attacks several times. In Israel, analysts believe Netanyahu might use the prospect of new strikes to pressure opponents into creating a national unity government. That could help him remain in power during wartime.

The outcomes could change the conflict’s direction. If Netanyahu loses, he would become an interim head of government, making it harder to reignite the war. Trump still has not approved new attacks. Military deployments, however, are continuing, with U.S. forces expected to reach desired levels next month.

The earlier U.S. and Israeli strikes produced consequences far beyond the immediate battlefield. The article says attacks between February and April caused a spike in global energy prices, which contributed to worldwide inflation. They also undermined security across the Middle East and created tensions between Washington and its allies.

The military cost for the United States was significant. The strikes drastically depleted the Pentagon’s reserves of missile interceptors. Those systems are used to defend against incoming missiles, so reduced reserves can limit how long or how broadly the United States can sustain defensive operations during another escalation.

These results challenge the argument for renewed bombing. Washington and Israel believe economic and military pressure could force Tehran to make concessions. Instead, the article says the earlier campaign increased economic and security risks without producing visible Iranian concessions. A new offensive could therefore repeat the same pressures while adding further regional instability.

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow, strategic waterway used by ships carrying energy supplies from the Persian Gulf region. The article identifies it as a route through which one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas flowed before the conflict. Its importance comes from how much international energy trade depends on this passage.

Iran closed the strait after hostilities began. Washington is demanding that Tehran reopen it, while Iran has continued threatening possible responses to another attack. The article says recent Iranian actions have included attacks against merchant ships in the strait and energy infrastructure in neighboring countries.

A prolonged closure could restrict deliveries and intensify pressure on energy markets. The earlier conflict already caused global energy prices to spike and contributed to worldwide inflation. The article does not quantify the economic effect of the current closure, but its stated role in global energy flows makes the waterway central to the crisis.

The article says one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas flowed through the Strait of Hormuz before the conflict. This figure shows why the waterway matters far beyond Iran and its neighbors. A disruption there can affect energy availability, shipping decisions, and prices in markets around the world.

Iran closed the strait after hostilities began. The United States is demanding that Tehran reopen it. The article also reports that Iran has attacked merchant ships in the strait during recent months, linking the waterway directly to the military confrontation and its economic consequences.

The article does not provide a separate estimate for how much trade is currently blocked. It does show that earlier U.S. and Israeli strikes caused global energy prices to rise and inflation to increase worldwide. Any continuing threat to a route carrying one-fifth of global oil and gas could deepen those pressures.

Sanctions and military pressure can change behavior by raising the economic and security costs of a government’s choices. In this case, Washington believes sanctions, bombing, and pressure on Iran’s economy could eventually force Tehran to make concessions. The approach treats worsening conditions as leverage for negotiations.

The article gives a clear example of the proposed mechanism. U.S. and Israeli officials believe Iran’s weakened economy might collapse after another round of strikes. They hope that economic damage would persuade Iran’s leadership to yield on issues it has resisted during eight months of conflict, including its nuclear program.

The strategy has not produced that result so far. The article says Iran has shown no signs of making the expected concessions, while earlier strikes caused inflation, regional insecurity, allied tensions, and depleted U.S. interceptor reserves. Iran has instead threatened retaliation, including possible attacks on data centers and undersea internet cables.