Israel army chief briefed on possible US Iran operations within three weeks - Axios

Haalvsh, which covers developments in Sistan-Baluchestan, said more than 12 personnel were killed or wounded overall between Wednesday evening and Thursday evening in Nikshahr, Nosratabad, Faryab and Jalq, but cautioned that the final toll could be higher because some casualties had not yet been identified.

The People's Fighters Front took responsibility for the attacks in Nikshahr, Nosratabad and Jalq, according to Haalvsh. The alliance, announced in late 2025, includes several Baluch armed groups, among them Jaish al-Adl. The group had not taken responsibility for the killing in Faryab.

Nikshahr and Nosratabad attacks

In the Nikshahr area, Haalvsh said two vehicles carrying military personnel were attacked. Mohammadreza Okati was killed and five others were wounded, according to the outlet, which identified the wounded as Ali Najafi, Mohammadreza Hosseini, Mojtaba Mir and two others identified by the surnames Keikha and Iranmanesh.

Haalvsh said those casualties were taken to Mohammad Rasoulallah Hospital in Nikshahr, while other wounded personnel were evacuated by helicopter to medical facilities in Chabahar, Konarak and Iranshahr. It said it had not established their number or identities.

Iran's army separately confirmed on Thursday that Okati was killed when personnel from its 88th Armored Division came under fire while traveling for a shift change, but said three people were wounded.

In the Nosratabad area near Zahedan, Haalvsh said at least three security personnel were killed and two wounded when gunmen attacked a police commando patrol on the Lakhshak road. It identified two of those reported killed as Vahid Enayat and Abbas Aghaei.

• 

  Police officer killed in armed attack near Zahedan as violence continues in southeast Iran

• 

  Five killed in roadside attack as violence spreads in southeast Iran

• 

  IRGC says six gunmen killed in clash in Iran's restive southeast

Iranian police had earlier confirmed only Enayat's death, saying officers returned fire and that several attackers were wounded before fleeing.

Police major killed in Faryab

In Faryab, Haalvsh reported that Major Mehdi Jamshidi was shot dead while traveling in a private vehicle in the center of the county.

The outlet said Jamshidi was struck by seven bullets. It also cited reports that he had been among police personnel present during a confrontation involving women and other protesters in the village of Pashmuki in June.

The People's Fighters Front had not issued a statement taking responsibility for Jamshidi's killing, Haalvsh said.

Jalq police headquarters attacked

The fourth attack targeted the police command headquarters in Jalq, the administrative center of Golshan County, on Wednesday evening.

Haalvsh said the People's Fighters Front announced that its fighters had used a mine, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons in the attack and said six police personnel were hit.

Videos obtained by Haalvsh showed heavy gunfire around the facility and at least one support vehicle being targeted, according to the outlet. Haalvsh said it had not independently established the final number or identities of those killed or wounded. IranWire also reported an explosion and gunfire around the police facility.

Attacks follow weeks of violence

The latest incidents follow a series of attacks on Iranian security forces in the southeast. Earlier this week, gunmen attacked two military vehicles in Bampur, while last week a roadside attack near Zahedan and clashes in Rask and other areas produced further casualties.

Official Iranian accounts and reports from Haalvsh have repeatedly differed over casualty numbers in recent attacks. Haalvsh said the toll from the four latest incidents should therefore be treated as provisional, particularly because some wounded personnel were transferred to hospitals outside the areas where the attacks occurred.

The source said three of the five factions covered by the plan had completed agreed handovers, but had not surrendered their entire arsenals. The process instead focused on heavy and specialized weapons and dismantling separate military headquarters.

The Popular Mobilization Forces, which the report said formally operates under Iraq’s commander-in-chief, had received the weapons and military headquarters covered by the agreements. It had also begun integrating faction members and severing their previous political and administrative affiliations, according to the source.

Drones placed under PMF structure

The new drone unit is intended to absorb the factions’ unmanned-aircraft capabilities into official state structures rather than leave them under independently run organizations, the source told Erem News.

But the source stressed that the agreements “do not mean complete disarmament.” Instead, they involve transferring specialized weapons and reorganizing armed formations within the PMF.

Erem News said effective control over those military capabilities would depend on completing the integration process and establishing the chain of command responsible for authorizing their use. The report did not identify the three factions that had completed the handover.

• 

  Iran’s security chief to push Iraqi Shia factions to approve militia integration law

• 

  Iran, Iraq discussed tighter curbs on Kurdish groups in Larijani visit, sources say

• 

  Iraq’s Iran-backed PMF militia fears terrorist label by the US

Government seeks changes to PMF leadership

A political source close to Iraq’s Coordination Framework told Erem News that the government was also seeking amendments to the law governing the PMF, including limiting the term of its chairman to two years and bringing professional officers from the regular military into senior posts.

The proposal would directly affect the position of current PMF chairman Falih al-Fayyadh, according to the report. The source said the plan faced opposition within the Coordination Framework, particularly from Nouri al-Maliki’s State of Law coalition, which wanted any changes tied to a broader political agreement.

Two factions continue to resist

Erem News said Kataib Hezbollah and Harakat al-Nujaba remained opposed to surrendering their weapons, while other factions had accepted the principle of integration into state security institutions.

Zaidi has set June 30, 2027, as the deadline for completing the weapons-control plan and has said decisions on war and peace belong exclusively to Iraq’s constitutional authorities. According to the political source, he has also told Coordination Framework leaders that he intends to continue implementing the plan even if political agreement on some of its details stalls.

The source said Zaidi warned that failure by groups with armed wings to meet agreed commitments could expose Iraq to security, economic and political consequences, including additional sanctions or pressure, while adding that the prime minister still favored negotiations over a direct military confrontation with factions resisting the plan.

Mohsen Zangeneh told Sahar TV during a visit to Afghanistan that the arrangement envisaged about 10 hectares along the waterfront inside Chabahar port and more than 100 hectares in the special zone in an initial phase. The Afghan government would invest in developing the facilities, he said.

“He proposed that we set aside an area in Chabahar for Afghanistan—in other words, that Afghanistan could have land of its own in the free zone at Chabahar port,” Zangeneh said, referring to Afghanistan’s industry minister.

Zangeneh did not specify whether the land would be leased or transferred into Afghan ownership. He said the Afghan side had requested more space within the port itself, but limited coastal land made that difficult.

“We reached this preliminary understanding during this visit and, God willing, we will follow up on it,” he said.

The discussions also covered wider industrial cooperation, a joint industrial park and a goal of increasing bilateral trade to $10 billion, according to Iranian media reports. Zangeneh described the land proposal as a way for Afghanistan to develop the infrastructure needed to transport its goods through Chabahar.

Baloch activists questioned how local residents would benefit, pointing to longstanding problems with housing, employment, infrastructure and access to basic services. They said arrangements for Afghan economic activity in Chabahar dated back to 2012, but questions about the share of development going to Baloch communities remained unanswered.

The Balochistan Human Rights Documentation Network said more than half of Chabahar’s population had at one point lived in informal settlements, with their expansion becoming a major problem for the area.

Against that backdrop, the group said, allocating land for foreign economic activity without disclosing its precise location, ownership arrangements, contract terms or duration of use had heightened concerns. It also questioned the lack of detail about local participation and employment.

Activists called on authorities to identify who would receive the land, disclose investment commitments and explain what obligations would apply to hiring local workers. They also sought clarity on how local communities would share in the revenue and business opportunities generated by the project.

More than 56,000 people took part in the October 8 poll, with 68% saying ordinary people bear the greatest burden of US pressure. Another 23% said both the public and the government suffer, while 9% said the authorities are affected most.

Men accounted for approximately 76% of respondents and women for 24%.

The largest age group was 25 to 34, representing about 38% of participants, followed by those aged 35 to 44 at 29%. Respondents aged 18 to 24 and 45 to 54 each accounted for 12%.

Thousands of comments accompanying the poll reflected differing views on the economic consequences of US pressure, the Islamic Republic's responsibility for worsening living conditions and whether external pressure could bring political change.

Rising prices dominate concerns

The most common concern among respondents who believed ordinary Iranians were suffering most was the deterioration in daily living conditions.

Many cited rising prices, declining purchasing power, shrinking incomes and the growing financial burden on low-income households.

Others pointed to difficulties accessing medicine and medical treatment, arguing that people with fewer financial resources were particularly vulnerable to economic restrictions.

• 

  Officials trade blame as Iran’s economy sinks deeper

"Only ordinary people are being crushed under the pressure," one respondent wrote.

Several participants argued that even when US measures target the Islamic Republic, their economic consequences ultimately reach households through higher prices and reduced access to essential goods.

Officials seen as insulated from hardship

Another recurring theme was the perceived gap between the living standards of ordinary Iranians and those of government officials.

Some respondents argued that access to wealth, foreign currency, privileged positions and state resources allowed officials and their associates to avoid some of the hardships experienced by the wider population.

"The main burden falls on the people. The government would even be happy to see people becoming poorer every day," one respondent wrote.

• 

  Iran drug shortages hit 800 medicines as costs could triple

Other participants said the Islamic Republic also suffers from economic restrictions through reduced revenues and limited access to financial resources, but can pass some of those costs on to the public.

For these respondents, the issue was not simply whether sanctions hurt the government or the public, but how the economic burden was distributed.

Economic hardship versus hopes for political change

The sharpest disagreement concerned whether the immediate economic costs of US pressure could be justified by the prospect of political change.

Some respondents acknowledged that ordinary Iranians were suffering but considered the hardship acceptable if it weakened the Islamic Republic or helped bring about a different political system.

"People will endure it because this suffering is worth it for a free Iran tomorrow," one wrote.

Others questioned whether worsening economic conditions would produce meaningful political change.

They argued that household finances could deteriorate far more quickly than external pressure could affect the country's political leadership.

100%

Several respondents held both US policies and the Islamic Republic's economic management responsible for the hardships facing Iranians.

Some likened sanctions to a painful medical treatment, reflecting a willingness among certain supporters of external pressure to accept short-term suffering in pursuit of longer-term political goals.

Others rejected that calculation, arguing that the prospect of political change remained uncertain while the immediate costs to families were already evident.

A divided view of US pressure

Although 68% of respondents believed ordinary Iranians were bearing the greatest burden, their answers did not necessarily show opposition to all forms of US pressure.

• 

  Iran says economy holding up as pressure mounts on oil, rial

Some viewed the economic consequences as unacceptable, while others regarded them as a painful but potentially necessary means of weakening the Islamic Republic.

Likewise, respondents who believed the government was suffering most did not necessarily dismiss the economic difficulties facing households.

Trump said on Truth Social that Washington was having “productive discussions” with Iran and would not attack the country before the November 3 elections. He said, however, that the US blockade of Iranian ports would remain in place.

Trump had made similar remarks ahead of previous military action against Iran. In June 2025, he said he would decide within two weeks whether the United States would join Israel’s war against Iran, citing a “substantial chance” of negotiations. US forces struck Iranian nuclear sites days later.

Also days before the 2026 war, Trump said he preferred a diplomatic solution with Iran while also laying out the case for possible military action.

The remarks offered the clearest timeline yet for a pause in renewed US strikes, while leaving open the possibility of military action after the elections.

On the Iranian side, President Masoud Pezeshkian said during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin that Tehran had not left the negotiating table and was working on its response to the latest US proposal.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi provided further detail Thursday, saying Iran had received Washington’s response to Tehran’s “seven-day plan” and was reviewing it.

Araghchi said Tehran would deliver its response within the next few days and that messages continued to pass between Iran and the United States through mediators.

Reports of US military preparations

The talks are continuing as Washington prepares for the possibility of renewed military action.

Senior US officials told Israeli military chief Eyal Zamir earlier this week that the White House and Pentagon had instructed US forces to prepare for a possible large-scale attack on Iran within the next three weeks, Israel’s Channel 12 reported Thursday.

The network cited a senior US official and another source briefed on the conversation. Zamir warned that an attack within that timeframe could lead to the postponement of Israel’s October 27 election, based on an assessment that Iran would respond with heavy missile fire against Israel.

Trump’s pledge not to strike Iran before the US midterms appears to rule out that timeline, but does not remove the prospect of renewed military action after the November 3 vote.

No boots on the ground

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Thursday Washington was not seeking to “nation build” in Iran or deploy large numbers of ground troops to control territory, framing the US objective as preventing Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Hegseth said Iran could achieve that outcome “the easy way or the hard way,” but that Trump would ultimately decide how to proceed. If military action became necessary, he said, it would be “swift and decisive.”

Mediators are also seeking more room for diplomacy. They have asked Trump to give them additional time for negotiations before any potential attack on Iran, Al Hadath reported Thursday, citing a US source.

In his meeting with Putin, Iran’s Pezeshkian said there was no end to the war in sight as long as the United States continued what he described as unilateralism.

Iranian Defense Ministry spokesperson Reza Talaei-Nik also told the state TV that the country’s arms-production capacity was sufficient to sustain a prolonged war.

“We currently have the production capacity needed for a sustained and prolonged war within our production system,” Talaei-Nik added.

He said Defense Ministry personnel were working alongside missile launch crews, drone units and Revolutionary Guards and army naval and air forces to use battlefield experience to upgrade weapons and equipment based on emerging threats.

Hormuz remains a flashpoint

Iran’s warnings also focused on the Strait of Hormuz, a key issue in negotiations with Washington.

Revolutionary Guards commander-in-chief Ahmad Vahidi said Thursday that the United States and other “extra-regional” powers had no right to interfere in the strait or the Persian Gulf, warning that threats or unauthorized naval movements would face a forceful response.

Vahidi described the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic “red line” for the Islamic Republic and said the Guards’ naval forces were equipped with precision-guided missiles, attack drones, fast boats, electronic warfare capabilities and coastal defenses.

His warning came as tensions over shipping intensified. Reuters reported Thursday that vessel traffic through the strait had fallen to its lowest level in more than two months following a surge in attacks on tankers, while Tehran warned regional countries against attempts to establish oil-export routes it had not authorized.