Global Affairs Session 113 21 October 2026

IRAN WAR 2.0

Trump Netanyahu's election gamble | US–Israel prepare to strike

Opening summary

America & Israel are preparing for renewed military operations against Iran.

Israel votes on October 27, America's midterm elections follow on November 3, and Iran is using its strategic position around the Strait of Hormuz to exert pressure. Meanwhile, Pakistan's Field Marshal Asim Munir is attempting to revive stalled negotiations.

With tanker incidents, rising oil prices and military preparations intensifying the crisis, a major new offensive will further destabilize the complete region.

Iran war 2.0: Why the world is on edge

1. Pentagon preparations: On October 7, Axios reported US Central Command was instructed to prepare for possible major military operations against Iran.
2. High-level military meeting: US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth met Netanyahu on October 19 amid concerns over renewed confrontation.
3. Two critical elections: Israel votes on October 27, followed by US midterm elections on November 3, complicating decisions about escalation.
4. Hormuz tanker incidents: Iranian forces claimed naval mines damaged oil tankers, while separate reports described attacks on commercial shipping.
5. Pakistan's mediation: Field Marshal Asim Munir visited Tehran on October 20, seeking to revive dialogue between Washington and Tehran.
6. The central uncertainty: Military preparations and serious threats are evident, but no verified final decision authorizing another major offensive has emerged.

America's military preparations: Is Trump preparing to strike?

1. CENTCOM readiness orders: Pentagon preparations reportedly cover major combat operations, but readiness instructions do not constitute presidential authorization for an attack.
2. Strategic targets: Iranian nuclear facilities, military assets and energy infrastructure feature in reported discussions, with potentially severe consequences for regional stability.
3. Hegseth–Netanyahu meeting: Their October 19 discussions reinforced bilateral military coordination as both governments assessed Iranian capabilities and possible future confrontations.
4. Military superiority, strategic risks: America possesses overwhelming conventional capabilities, but Iranian retaliation could endanger regional bases, allied territories and commercial shipping.
5. Trump's October 8 assurance: Trump stated America would not attack Iran before the November 3 midterms, even as military contingency planning continued.
6. The unanswered question: Washington may be strengthening deterrence, preparing genuine strike options or pursuing both strategies simultaneously to increase negotiating pressure.

Israel's October 27 election: Netanyahu's biggest gamble?

1. Election countdown: Israel's October 27 parliamentary election will shape the next governing coalition amid continuing security threats and political divisions.
2. Netanyahu's security argument: Iran's military capabilities and nuclear ambitions remain central to debates about Israel's long-term security and national defence strategy.
3. Trump's endorsement: Trump publicly supported Netanyahu's electoral campaign, while Vice President JD Vance declined to endorse a specific Israeli candidate.
4. Military concerns: Axios reported Israeli military warnings that renewed fighting and Iranian missile retaliation could disrupt the election timetable.
5. A double-edged offensive: Military action might demonstrate resolve, but Israeli casualties, extended hostilities or economic disruption could provoke stronger political criticism.
6. Netanyahu's public position: He opposed a major pre-election offensive, although Israeli military preparedness and concerns about Iran have not disappeared.

Trump's November 3 midterms: Can Iran wait him out?

1. Congressional elections approaching: On November 3, Americans elect a new Congress, potentially reshaping Trump's domestic authority and political room for manoeuvre.
2. The economic burden: Expensive gasoline, disrupted oil supplies and continuing regional warfare create serious electoral challenges for Trump's Republican Party.
3. Iran's reported strategy: Reuters cites senior Iranian officials suggesting Tehran is prolonging negotiations partly to deny Trump a pre-election diplomatic victory.
4. The pre-election dilemma: New strikes could demonstrate American military strength, but retaliation, casualties or another oil-price surge could undermine Trump's political position.
5. What happens after November 3? Trump's pledge concerns attacks before the midterms, leaving open the possibility of renewed military operations afterward.
6. Iran's dangerous gamble: Tehran may believe sustained economic pressure strengthens its bargaining position, but prolonged confrontation is also devastating its own economy.

Pakistan and Asim Munir: Can diplomacy prevent war?

1. Munir's Tehran mission: Pakistan's Field Marshal Asim Munir arrived in Tehran on October 20, seeking to revive negotiations amid growing military tensions.
2. Islamabad's previous mediation: Pakistan helped facilitate earlier ceasefire diplomacy and the June 17 Islamabad Memorandum, but subsequent hostilities undermined the peace process.
3. Iran's negotiating demands: Tehran wants the US naval blockade lifted, oil-export restrictions eased, frozen assets released and regional hostilities ended.
4. The nuclear disagreement: Washington seeks major restrictions on Iran's nuclear programme, while Tehran resists surrendering its accumulated enriched uranium and strategic leverage.
5. Multiple diplomatic channels: Pakistan is pursuing high-level talks while Qatar conveys Iranian proposals, reflecting parallel efforts to prevent another major escalation.
6. The Munir challenge: Pakistan must reconcile American nuclear demands with Iranian economic and security conditions while overcoming deep distrust between the adversaries.

Hormuz tanker crisis: Iran's most powerful pressure point?

1. Tankers reportedly burning: Iran's Revolutionary Guards claimed two oil tankers caught fire after striking naval mines south of Hormuz, without independently verified incident details.
2. Wider maritime incidents: British maritime authorities separately reported military encounters involving commercial shipping, underscoring the continuing dangers to vessels in the region.
3. A global energy chokepoint: Hormuz normally carries around one-fifth of internationally traded oil, making severe disruption a major threat to energy-importing economies.
4. Oil-price volatility: Brent briefly reached $111.99 per barrel on October 20 before retreating, reflecting supply fears and changing expectations about diplomacy.
5. Iran's economic leverage: Threatening shipping increases pressure on energy consumers, but the US blockade and sanctions have simultaneously devastated Iranian oil revenues.
6. The India connection: Higher crude prices and shipping costs could increase India's import bill, inflation pressures, transport expenses and broader economic uncertainty.

What happens next: War, agreement or prolonged confrontation?

1. Scenario one, renewed major strikes: Washington and Israel could resume large-scale attacks on Iranian military, nuclear or strategic infrastructure, risking widespread retaliation.
2. Scenario two, diplomatic breakthrough: Pakistan, Qatar and other intermediaries could broker phased concessions involving maritime access, sanctions relief and nuclear restrictions.
3. Scenario three, continued standoff: Military preparations, limited confrontation, shipping disruption and negotiations could persist without an immediate large-scale offensive.
4. Iran's asymmetric leverage: Tehran can threaten shipping and regional stability, but continued escalation risks further destroying its economy and strategic infrastructure.
5. America and Israel's advantage: Their superior conventional capabilities provide substantial military options, although battlefield success cannot guarantee a sustainable political settlement.
6. The decisive countdown: Israel's October 27 election and America's November 3 midterms will test whether political pressure encourages restraint or heightens escalation risks.

Conclusion

The next confrontation with Iran may be decided as much by election calendars and economic pressures, as by missiles and military capabilities.

Netanyahu faces voters on October 27; Trump faces his congressional midterms on November 3.

Iran is trying to preserve leverage through Hormuz, while Pakistan and Qatar explore diplomatic alternatives. The Pentagon is preparing, but another major offensive remains unconfirmed.

The greatest danger is that political calculations, military signalling and maritime incidents could combine to trigger a much wider war.

Value addition

Glossary and related terms

CENTCOM (United States Central Command)

The US military command responsible for operations across the Middle East and parts of Central and South Asia.

Pentagon

The headquarters of the United States Department of Defense; often used as shorthand for American military leadership.

Contingency planning

Military preparation for a possible operation without necessarily having approval to execute it.

Presidential authorization

Approval from the United States president for an operation that requires a presidential decision.

Deterrence

Using the prospect of a credible response to discourage an adversary from taking an action.

Military escalation

An increase in the scale, intensity or geographic spread of armed confrontation.

Conventional military capabilities

Armed forces and weapons used in warfare other than nuclear weapons.

Bilateral military coordination

Military planning or communication between two countries.

US midterm elections

Congressional elections held approximately halfway through a four-year US presidential term.

Knesset

Israel’s parliament, whose party representation determines the basis for coalition government formation.

Electoral coalition

An alliance of political parties seeking to form or support a government.

Strait of Hormuz

The narrow maritime passage connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and onward sea routes.

Maritime chokepoint

A narrow sea passage through which a significant volume of international shipping travels.

Oil tanker

A ship designed to transport crude oil or petroleum products in bulk.

Naval mine

An explosive device placed in water to threaten or damage ships.

Brent crude

An internationally used oil-price benchmark quoted in US dollars per barrel.

Energy security

The reliability and affordability of energy supplies for households, businesses and the economy.

Naval blockade

The use of naval forces to restrict access to or movement from a coastline or maritime area.

Economic sanctions

Financial or trade restrictions imposed to influence a government or other target.

Nuclear enrichment

The process of increasing the concentration of a particular uranium isotope; a key issue in nuclear negotiations.

Enriched uranium

Uranium that has undergone enrichment, with potential uses depending on its enrichment level and application.

Mediation

Assistance by a third party seeking to help opposing sides reach an agreement.

Islamabad Memorandum

The June 17 diplomatic memorandum referenced in this lecture in connection with earlier ceasefire efforts.

Diplomatic channel

A route for exchanging proposals and negotiating between governments or their intermediaries.

Asymmetric leverage

Pressure exerted through methods such as threats to shipping or infrastructure despite unequal conventional military strength.

Retaliation

A responsive action taken after an attack or other hostile measure.

Strategic standoff

A prolonged confrontation in which opposing sides continue pressure and preparations without necessarily beginning a major offensive.

Scenario analysis

Considering alternative possible future outcomes rather than predicting that one outcome is certain.