US eyes new strikes on Iran as Vance reaches out: Is war or a deal closer? | US-Israeli war against Iran

Over the past week, Washington and Tehran have sent mixed signals over whether their eight-month war was moving toward a return to large-scale strikes or toward a peace deal.

On Thursday, the head of the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), Admiral Brad Cooper, briefed US President Donald Trump on possible options for further attacks against Iran, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported.

The United States and Israel have drawn up joint plans to attack Iran after the US midterm elections on November 3, the New York Times (NYT) reported last week.

However, on the same day, the Washington Post reported that Vice President JD Vance had offered to meet in person with Mohsen Rezaei, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, to negotiate an end to the war.

On Friday, Qatari mediators returned to Tehran for coordinated talks with the United States, an official told Reuters.

So is Washington heading toward a return to war or toward an agreement? Here’s what we know:

Why are there conflicting reports?

Essentially, Washington is preparing for war while keeping the diplomatic channel open.

The WSJ reported that the United States has strengthened its air defenses and munitions in the region and moved some troops away from bases vulnerable to Iranian retaliation.

Ten US military cargo planes landed at Ovda and Nevatim air bases in Israel’s Negev region on Thursday, with others sent to Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Israeli public broadcaster Kan reported.

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, who said he was briefed on the plans, called them “crazy” and warned of a devastating escalation.

Can diplomatic efforts prevent the return of strikes?

Diplomacy has not stopped.

Vance’s letter, delivered to Rezaei on Sunday through Qatari mediators, proposed direct talks led by Vance, with Iran’s nuclear program on the table from the start, according to the New York Times, in an effort to prevent a resumption of strikes.

Whether this might have any influence on what happens next is a matter of debate. Rouzbeh Parsi, an Iran analyst and affiliated researcher with the department of history and human rights studies at Lund University in Sweden, described Vance as the “voice of reason” on Iran within the Trump administration, saying his signals were “the least volatile and unpredictable.”

But he also told Al Jazeera that Vance’s position “never proved strong enough to actually influence Trump.”

“So even though Vance’s optics seem better than anyone else’s in the Trump administration, I doubt they (Iranian officials) will give much credence to outreach until Vance proves capable of actually delivering something on his own,” he said.

Additionally, Nader Hashemi, a professor of Middle East politics at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera that “Rezaei is just one voice among many,” adding that “the reality is that decisions are made collectively within the Islamic republic.”

Wolfgang Pusztai, security and defense analyst and former Austrian defense attaché in Libya, however, has a different view, telling Al Jazeera: “There is no doubt that the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) is currently calling the shots in Iran. »

In February, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, then Iran’s supreme leader, was killed in the first attacks by Israel and the United States, and his son became the new supreme leader, but Pusztai says he “just doesn’t have the influence of his father.”

“Without IRGC approval, there will be no deal with Iran,” Pusztai said, adding that it is reasonable to assume that when Rezaei makes a statement or supports a proposal, “it reflects the position of the IRGC leadership” and that the United States was “absolutely right to negotiate with him.”

Pusztai said it was unclear whether Rezaei was actually ready to make a serious compromise, but under sustained pressure from the United States, Rezaei, who holds a doctorate in economics, could understand that “Iran’s interests and the regime’s survival can be better ensured without nuclear weapons and through a less aggressive foreign policy.”

“He certainly knows that peak oil is coming and that time is running out for Iran’s economic recovery through the use of its oil revenues,” he said.

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said progress depended on meeting seven conditions imposed by Iran – including lifting sanctions, ending the US naval blockade of Iranian ports, ensuring an end to US-Israeli strikes and unfreezing Iranian assets – adding that “the carrot and stick approach has no effect on Iran”, according to the semi-official Tasnim news agency.

Vance, meanwhile, told Fox News on Thursday that Trump would “never” let the conflict become “a forever war.”

Which of all these signals is the most important?

Diplomacy perhaps says more than threats.

Andreas Krieg, associate professor of security studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera that Vance’s offer of direct talks “suggests that the Americans have doubts” and are less prepared to strike than they publicly suggest.

But he warned that Cooper, whom he called “quite hawkish,” could give Trump false confidence “that there is a military way out of this situation, when in reality, there is no military way out.”

“The idea that there is a short, sharp military operation to solve this problem is obviously an illusion,” he said.

Paul Musgrave, associate professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, told Al Jazeera that the White House could send signals to coerce Tehran, but that “the best interpretation is the simplest.”

He believes that “the United States is preparing to carry out substantial attacks relatively soon.” He said he did not expect Washington to accept what he called the unfavorable deal proposed by Tehran “without a new round of attacks.”

Pusztai said Trump is now primarily focused on the midterm elections, making it “very unlikely that he will order another large-scale attack on Iran before the election.”

“Starting in mid-November, there could be a major wave of attacks aimed at advancing the U.S. agenda,” he said, adding that the goal would be to weaken the IRGC enough to push it toward a deal on U.S. terms.

Whatever the outcome of the vote, “in the short term it won’t change much,” Musgrave said.

A strong Republican presence could encourage more aggressive tactics, while a Democratic victory could push Trump to show off his unilateral powers, including attacking, he said.

Hasn’t all this already happened?

It is. Iran was attacked by Israel or the United States while negotiations were underway in 2025 and 2026.

“We have seen this type of behavior from the United States before,” Hashemi said, describing it as “talking about diplomacy while preparing for war.”

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched major strikes against Iranian nuclear and military sites, two days before a sixth round of US-Iran talks was to be held in Oman. The United States joined the group on June 22 by bombing Iran’s nuclear sites at Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan.

This year, the United States and Israel attacked on February 28, two days after talks in Geneva that mediator Oman said had made “significant progress.”

A day before the strikes, Oman’s foreign minister said Iran had agreed to reduce its nuclear stockpiles to the “lowest possible level.”

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told Al Jazeera in September that Iran no longer had confidence in negotiations with Washington because attacks had occurred in previous rounds of negotiations.

Hashemi said he suspected “the same pattern is repeating itself,” with the United States preparing “a massive bombing campaign in Iran, filled with war crimes like we’ve never seen before,” citing his reading of Murphy’s comments.

What is blocking a deal?

“The problem lies mainly in the timetable and the lack of confidence on the Iranian side in the Americans’ ability to meet their commitments,” Krieg said.

Tehran wants sanctions and the U.S. naval blockade to be lifted quickly, fearing that a slow process would give Trump breathing room, he said.

Some IRGC hardliners don’t necessarily view war as a bad thing if it strengthens their grip on the Strait of Hormuz, he added, and “the Iranians have been preparing for this war for three weeks, so they are ready to fight.”

Krieg said he expects “nothing to happen before November 3 (the date of the US midterm elections).” After that, he said, the likelihood of war “will increase exponentially.”

Any further escalation would be worse than in February and March, he said, with Iran ready to hit Gulf countries’ critical infrastructure.

He said the threat to the Gulf “will be unprecedented.”