Washington is oscillating between the temptation to launch a lightning military strike against Iran and the gains of negotiating with it, at a time when the chances of a settlement still depend on Iranian concessions in the nuclear file, amid disagreements regarding the conditions for resuming the talks and the arrangement of their priorities.
While the US Army is studying options for launching an intensive military campaign that will last three days and target the Iranian arsenal of missiles and drones, a trend within the US administration is betting that economic pressures need more time to force Tehran to make tangible concessions.
President Donald Trump's retreat from launching an imminent attack raised questions about whether it was linked to rising oil prices or to indications that Iran was ready to return to negotiations.
On the other hand, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian stipulates the exclusion of pressures and threats, while the Qatari mediators await Tehran’s response to an American proposal that includes demands related to its nuclear program, so that the possibilities of a settlement remain open on two competing paths: negotiation under the pressure of escalation, or a return to military confrontation.
Troubled paths and risks of escalation
These developments are taking place at a time when diplomacy is facing difficulties on more than one front. The US-Iranian talks are still suspended due to disagreements over the terms of the settlement and the nuclear file. As for within the Middle East, American options seem governed by a delicate balance between the desire to weaken Iran’s military capabilities, and the fear of being drawn into a broader confrontation that might exhaust American defenses and expose navigation and regional facilities to more risks.
While Tehran is betting on raising the cost of any new attack, Washington is seeking to use military and economic pressure to extract concessions. However, the continued naval escalation, in addition to the expansion of the military buildup and the divergence of positions regarding the terms of negotiation, keeps the possibilities of reaching a quick settlement limited, and makes the next stage a test of the ability of the two parties to contain the confrontation before it slides into a broader war.
Indicators of escalation in the confrontation between the United States and Iran have recently increased, despite the continuation of diplomatic contacts aimed at ending the war. While the US Army is studying options to launch an intensive military campaign that will last 3 days and target Iranian missile and drone capabilities, the Revolutionary Guards have escalated their naval movements in the Strait of Hormuz, while Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian stressed that any agreement will not be possible in light of what he described as American pressures and threats.
These developments come amid an increasing US military buildup in the Middle East, while estimates vary within the US administration regarding the feasibility and risks of resuming military operations.
American plans for an intensive military campaign
The US Army has prepared options to resume broad combat operations against Iran, including an intensive campaign that may last about three days, according to US officials quoted by the New York Times.
The plans, prepared under the direction of President Donald Trump, focus on targeting the Iranian missile and drone arsenal, a large part of which the Revolutionary Guard has rebuilt since the first phase of the war. Targets may also include energy facilities and Iranian military headquarters.
Senior officials, led by Vice President J.D. Vance, discussed military options during a meeting at Camp David. Trump has previously rejected five proposals to launch large-scale operations against Iran or the Houthis it supports in Yemen, an indication of continued hesitation within the administration about moving to a broader military confrontation.
Despite the preparations, the decision to resume the attacks has not been decided. While some officials believe that economic pressures need more time to push Tehran to make concessions, others call for a limited military campaign that will increase pressure on it and weaken its ability to influence shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
On Thursday, Trump said that the United States would not launch a new attack on Iran before the midterm elections scheduled for November 3, noting that the two sides were holding “fruitful discussions.”
3 American aircraft carriers
In parallel with studying offensive options, the United States is preparing to strengthen its military presence in the region. It is expected that the aircraft carrier "Theodore Roosevelt" will join two other carriers, in a naval gathering that will be the first of its kind for three American aircraft carriers in the Middle East since 2003.
According to estimates contained in American reports, by the end of October, the naval buildup may exceed 20,000 sailors and Marines, along with hundreds of aircraft, as part of the rearrangement of forces with the return of the aircraft carrier “George Washington” to its base in Japan.
But expanding military deployment is not without challenges. American officials fear that Iran has improved its attack tactics and its ability to target American bases and installations in the region, which may force the use of larger quantities of interceptor missiles to protect military forces and assets.
Intelligence information, according to people familiar with it, indicated that images taken by satellites belonging to Chinese companies helped Iran improve its targeting of American bases. This may increase fears of depleting US defensive weapons stocks in the event of a renewed confrontation on a large scale.
Attacking a giant gas tanker
On the maritime front, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard announced, on Friday, attacking the giant gas tanker NV Sunshine in a statement reported by Iranian official media, and that its naval forces carried out the attack within the framework of what it described as exercising Iranian sovereignty over the strait, based on the orders of the senior military leadership.
He added that any ships that commit violations outside the Strait of Hormuz will also face punishment, in a threat that expands the scope of Iranian warnings against dealing with maritime traffic.
Reports indicate that Iran has attacked at least 13 ships since September, according to a British Navy monitoring group, while other intelligence estimates are closer to 20 ships. According to reports, these attacks have not led to a broad US military response so far.
The maritime escalation puts Washington facing a difficult equation: continued attacks threaten navigation in one of the most important sea lanes for global energy and trade, while a military response may expand the scope of the war and raise its cost to the American forces and their regional partners.
Pezeshkian: No negotiations under threat
On the other hand, Tehran stuck to its political conditions for reaching a settlement. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Friday that the success of negotiations aimed at ending the war with the United States depends on the absence of “pressure and threats,” stressing that dialogue does not gain meaning and has no chances of success unless it is based on respect and mutual commitments.
Bezeshkyan's statements came during the CIS summit in the Avaza resort in Turkmenistan, where he met with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, on the sidelines of the meetings.
Iranian official media quoted the Iranian president as saying that his country is engaged in the dialogue, but the United States “returns the attack every time we negotiate with it.” He also stressed that Tehran wants to reach a final framework to end the war, accusing Washington of trying to impose its policies and vision on other countries.
He added that reaching a solution would be impossible if the United States insisted on a unilateral approach.
One of the most prominent points of disagreement revolves around the arrangement of discussing the nuclear file. While Washington wants to discuss it first, Tehran insists on postponing it until the final stage of the negotiations, a disagreement that complicates efforts to establish a viable negotiating path.
Moscow offers mediation
In an effort to highlight its diplomatic role, Russian President Vladimir Putin renewed his country's readiness to help settle the war in the Middle East, saying that Moscow is ready to do everything in its power to contribute to ending the conflict.
Putin considered that Iran had made “real efforts” to end the war that broke out with the American and Israeli strikes on it on February 28. He also praised what he described as a positive development in Russian-Iranian relations.
The two countries have strengthened their diplomatic and military relations since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. On the other hand, Kiev and Western countries accuse Tehran of supplying Moscow with “Shahed” drones and short-range missiles used in the Ukrainian war, while Russia has been accused of providing Iran with data to determine targets for the purpose of targeting American interests in the Middle East.
The meeting between Putin and Pezeshkian came after a phone call between them on Wednesday, which the official Iranian news agency said discussed Moscow’s readiness to mediate in order to end the war. The two presidents met in September on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Kyrgyzstan, after meeting in Turkmenistan in December 2025.
The Russian move reflects an attempt to strengthen Moscow's presence in the settlement process, at a time when communications between Washington and Tehran are faltering, and the chances of reaching an agreement remain subject to overcoming differences regarding the terms of negotiation and the arrangement of the files at hand.
An official statement from the Israeli police confirmed the account of the Prime Minister's former military secretary, Major General Avi Gil, who took office on the morning of October 7, 2023, and revealed that Benjamin Netanyahu's office had falsified protocols and documents related to the war and others.
The police said that they investigated the matter at the time, based on several complaints and recommendations, and submitted their summary to the prosecution two years ago with a clear recommendation to prosecute those responsible. But she refused to reveal the identity of these officials, and whether Netanyahu himself was involved in the case or just his office director, Tzachi Braverman, and his assistants.
Major General Gale had revealed this falsification in numerous press interviews, in which he said that he had decided to speak now, after a long silence, due to the absence of an official independent investigation committee. He added: “Another reason is due to pressure from the families of prisoners held by Hamas, who demand that he say what he knows. But the straw that broke the camel's back was the story of the Flydubai plane. The Israeli security failures that appear in this process and the government’s way of blaming it make one explode. Because there is negligence in dealing with failures.”
In an interview with Channel 12, Gil revealed that during his period of work in the war, he prepared a thick file of thousands of pages, in which he documented the behaviors, actions, and events he personally witnessed, and transferred them to a military intelligence computer stored in a safe place, so that it would be a document ready for the official investigation committee if it were to arise.
He stressed from the beginning that “October 7” was a major failure for the army to which he belongs and for the rest of the security services. It was clear that Hamas was preparing for war and the security services were not preparing for it. These agencies went to the political leadership, time after time, clearly warning them and suggesting that they liquidate the leaders of Hamas, led by Yahya Sinwar, and he (Netanyahu) was underestimating.
When asked about his opinion on the right’s accusations against this leadership that it knew about the attack and did not inform Netanyahu; Because she was a conniver and her behavior was treasonous, Gale rejected this and said: “There is no treason. What is this?! Is it possible that the Chief of Staff, the head of the Shin Bet, and the commander of the Southern Brigade are traitors?! They miscalculated, acted arrogantly, and committed foolishness. Okay. I understand. But, betrayal is not possible.”
Regarding the political leadership, he said that it acted according to political conviction when it rejected suggestions to assassinate Hamas leaders, and it proceeded from political, partisan and personal calculations. When the attack occurred and the extent of its responsibility for the failure became clear, it began to act in a criminal and illegal manner to distort the truth. It forged documents, changed protocols, and deleted sections, at its whim, from official documents. When he learned of this, he went to the government’s judicial advisor, requesting that she stop it.
As a permanent companion to the Prime Minister and a participant in most of his meetings and security deliberations, he was asked if he testified that Netanyahu made many decisions for purely political reasons, which led to the Israeli prisoners remaining with Hamas, and thus their death. A third of the kidnapped people died in their captivity, and it was possible to return them alive, but Netanyahu refused. Because his interest required continuing the war and blocking deals... Gale replied: “Yes, that is true.”
He was asked if there was a warning from Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed. He replied: “During the period they are talking about, I was not at work. So I don't know anything about that.”
When asked about the sequence of events on the night of October 6-7, 2023, he narrated them as follows: “At 3:55 I received news from an intelligence officer in my office talking about the (Hamas) movement. He confirmed that it seemed normal and might be training, but we agreed to come back and talk later after further follow-up. At 6:12, the head of the Shin Bet chief’s office called me and asked me to talk on the red phone. So I went down from the upper floor to the basement where I put the red phone, and we communicated at 6:17, and he told me that the movements of Hamas men raised suspicions. There, the phone SIM cards of Hamas men were changed with an Israeli SIM card, and their leaders went down to the tunnels. So I decided to be more sure, so I contacted the director of the office of the Commander of the (Southern Brigade) in the army. I knew that something big was happening. Then, at 6:29, I woke up the Prime Minister and told him that there was a large-scale Hamas attack. I would check the information and get back to you with another call. After 11 minutes of communications with the field, I became aware of the attack. At 6:40 I called him again and informed him that we were at war.”
Netanyahu's office manager tried to change the dates of the phone call by crossing out the second conversation and settling for the first conversation at 6:29 to prove that the army knew about the attack, and at the exact minute of the attack they informed Netanyahu.
