After months of threats from Trump, the resumption of the war in Iran now seems inevitable

Since US President Donald Trump’s memorandum of understanding with Iran predictably collapsed, there have been regular warnings of a possible US, or even Israeli, attack on the Islamic Republic.

These predictions often follow Trump’s latest bombastic threats, which have proven to be a reliable indicator not of an imminent strike, but rather that he has no intention of resuming intensive combat operations against Iran.

But today, a return to war seems likely in the coming weeks.

There is good reason to believe that the chances of a US attack – or another joint operation with Israel – are increasing, and the Iranians know it.

But that doesn’t mean they’re about to give in.

“Finish the job”

Israel appears eager to resume the fight against Iran.

According to multiple reports, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to convince Trump to launch a joint strike, or at least give his blessing to an Israeli operation.

Two weeks ago, U.S. officials told Channel 12 that they believed Netanyahu wanted to launch an attack before the election.

A US source said Netanyahu “discussed the issue” of renewed attacks “on several occasions” and that Trump told the prime minister he could “go ahead and prepare” but did not formally commit to approving an attack.

Last week, sources told the Financial Times that Israel was prepared to carry out strikes on the weekend of October 10 against Iranian nuclear facilities and energy plants, but was stopped by Trump.

And on Sunday, reports emerged of an “unprecedented confrontation” in recent days between Netanyahu and IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir over unspecified military action that the prime minister is advocating. Defense officials say the operation could lead to a rapid confrontation with Iran shortly before the election.

“This is an action that could lead to a spike in tensions with Iran, at a sensitive and dramatic time, creating this (potential) miscalculation,” a security source told Channel 12.

Since Trump abruptly ended the US-Israeli campaign against Iran in April, it has been clear that he has no desire to return to war before the November midterm elections.

This schedule has not changed. CNN reported Monday that Israel had pressured the United States over the past week to support and potentially join Israeli strikes against Iran, but Trump asked Israel to wait, signaling that it would soon agree to conduct joint operations.

“There will be no strike today,” Trump told reporters Sunday.

Still, the midterm elections are almost here, and Trump has sharpened his rhetoric in recent days.

“Unless they quickly change their ways, we will soon finish the job,” Trump said in his first endorsement of Netanyahu, in which he boasted about the damage the United States and Israel had inflicted on Iran.

“We must finish the job we started!” “” Trump wrote Sunday in a second endorsement, which featured a further overhaul of their ties.

Trump’s statements themselves don’t necessarily mean much, but they come at the same time he’s taking concrete steps toward another major attack.

Earlier this month, Trump ordered the USS Theodore Roosevelt and its carrier strike group to the Middle East, along with about 10,000 Marines from the USS Makin Island Amphibious Ready Group. They are expected to arrive by the end of November, bringing the number of US aircraft carriers near Iranian shores to three.

“Question of time”

Iranians have long expected a return to war.

“In any case, the Iranians believe with a high probability that Trump probably intends to renew the attacks after the midterms,” said Raz Zimmt, an expert on Iran at the Institute for National Security Studies.

“They see the preparations, they see the readiness and they see the declarations, and they know above all that the current divide, at least between the United States and Iran, is a divide that is very, very difficult to bridge, and so the working hypothesis in Iran is that it is only a matter of time before the war resumes. »

Although various US officials have expressed slightly different versions, Trump’s main demands are simple: Iran will have to renounce enrichment on its soil, ship out its enriched uranium, cease any threat to freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, and only then can it begin to receive significant economic aid.

It’s miles from the Iranian position. In exchange for an initial ceasefire of just seven days followed by negotiations, Iran demanded that the United States end the blockade of Iranian ships, lift oil sanctions, release frozen assets and end the war “on all fronts,” a euphemism for forcing Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon.

Or, as US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz put it, Iran is demanding everything up front: “lifting the blockade, sanctions, international sanctions and access to billions in assets, just for talk.”

And even if these talks were to take place, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will not return to what it was before the war. Iran’s leaders view control of this key waterway as one of the country’s major achievements in the war and insist they will not compromise on it.

Nor does it appear that Iran is in the mood to change its other conditions. Even in the face of a very effective American blockade, with an inflationary spiral and a contraction of the economy, Iran did not follow through on any of its demands.

The US blockade and threat of war may be dangerous, but the Islamic Republic still considers giving in to US demands much riskier for the regime.

Iran knows that its nuclear program is the best bargaining chip it has left and it must extract every possible concession from the United States before accepting even moderate limits.

A more targeted campaign

With no real prospect of a negotiated settlement, all parties are preparing for a return to war.

Netanyahu has warned of a possible Iranian attack on Israel ahead of Tuesday’s elections.

The idea doesn’t make much sense. Even if Iran expects a new round of fighting, it has little reason to impose a new one.

And while she increases pressure on the United States’ Arab allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, she is conspicuously avoiding anything that could trigger another attack from the country she currently fears most.

“Iran has not directly attacked Israel since early June because it fears, rightly, that Israel will retaliate harshly,” said Michael Makovsky, president and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, “by striking internal energy facilities such as refineries and natural gas facilities that supply electricity, more leadership, missiles and possibly nuclear weapons.” »

It now appears that it is only a matter of time before this operation takes place.

Once the US midterm elections conclude in early November, Trump will begin his final two years to cement his legacy.

Until the conflict with Iran is resolved, American citizens will continue to face high gas prices and inflation. Trump has put the state of the U.S. economy at the center of his two terms, and he doesn’t want to be remembered as a president who left it in ruins.

He also does not want to be a president incapable of reaching any conclusion on Iranian nuclear issues – and on the Iranian threat to the Strait of Hormuz.

Of course, another US-Israeli campaign will fail to achieve its goals if it is too ambitious.

The allies may want to see the Islamic Republic eventually fall, but regime change is not something a bombing campaign can likely achieve, as was clearly shown in the war earlier this year.

It would be more reasonable to strive to influence Iran’s calculations around a deal with the United States.

Hitting Iranian energy facilities could intensify domestic pressure on the regime to soften its stance, while degrading Iran’s drone and missile capabilities would make it harder for Tehran to threaten Hormuz’s ships.

A campaign would also likely target remaining elements of Iran’s nuclear program, particularly Pickaxe Mountain. The site, buried deep beneath a mountain south of Iran’s Natanz nuclear enrichment site, was left untouched during two U.S.-Israeli campaigns, and the United Nations nuclear watchdog never had access to the site.

The United States and Israel believe Iran moved centrifuges and some of its highly enriched uranium to the site.

Netanyahu would naturally prefer to carry out such an attack with a firm mandate from the country to continue its fight against the Iranian axis alongside Trump.

It is far from certain that he will obtain this mandate and if he does not obtain it, he will still have the power to order a new campaign against Iran. It may even be the way he prefers to distance himself from power.