Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday that he had no intention of resuming strikes before the midterms, adding that the United States was engaged in “constructive negotiations” with Iran.
Global oil prices, which had fluctuated sharply during the week amid growing threats to shipping in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, fell following Trump’s remarks.
Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, a former chairman of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, wrote on X that plans by the United States, Israel and their regional allies for another war with Iran had nothing to do with elections in either country.
He argued that Trump’s declaration that Washington would not attack Iran before November 3 was intended to prevent Iran from launching a “pre-emptive strike”.
Parisa Nasr, a journalist considered close to Iran’s Foreign Ministry, similarly dismissed Trump’s statement in a commentary titled “Forget Trump’s nonsense: A third war is imminent.”
“The evidence suggests that Trump’s claim that any military attack on Iran will be postponed until after the US midterm elections is, above all, more like a political game and a psychological operation,” she wrote.
Nasr argued that Washington’s calculations would depend largely on the scale of retaliation it expected from Iran.
Hardline commentator Alireza Taghaviniya also described Trump’s remarks as “deception,” pointing to US and Israeli military movements and coordination with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as indications that a confrontation was approaching.
A window to strike first
Some Iranian hardliners argue that Tehran should use the period before the US midterm elections to launch pre-emptive attacks against American and Israeli interests.
Supporters of this approach say the objective would not necessarily be to trigger an all-out war. Instead, limited strikes could put pressure on oil markets and force Trump to accept an agreement on terms favorable to Iran.
Politician Abdolreza Davari argued on X that Trump had inadvertently exposed a weakness by ruling out a new military attack before the elections while simultaneously describing negotiations with Tehran as constructive. Davari said Trump feared the electoral cost of war.
“From today until November 3, a window of approximately three weeks has opened before Iran,” he wrote. “The Islamic Republic must use this opportunity to intensify military action as a means of bargaining and forcing Washington to accept Iran’s legitimate demands.”
In another post, he was blunter: “Grab the enemy by the throat right now and do not let go.”
The proposal drew warnings online that striking first would play into the hands of Trump and Israel.
A user identified as Mahmoud Irani argued that an Iranian attack would allow Trump to portray the United States as the victim and gain electoral advantage by retaliating: “Iran should maintain its military readiness so that, if Iran is attacked, it can counterattack Trump.”
Another user, identified as Rezvan, warned that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been predicting an Iranian pre-emptive attack for weeks and “hopes this will happen,” either to postpone the US election or help Trump win.
Pressure at Hormuz
The debate comes as Iran is already increasing pressure in and around the Strait of Hormuz.
Iranian officials and military forces insist the waterway remains closed except to vessels Tehran authorizes, contrary to statements by Trump and other US officials, and say restrictions will remain until Washington accepts Iran’s seven conditions.
Hassan Ghashghavi, spokesman for parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, also disputed Trump’s claim that oil shipments through the strait had increased.
“The initiative in the Strait of Hormuz is in our hands,” he told Rouydad 24, arguing that alternative routes and limited tanker movements had failed to eliminate the effects of Iran’s restrictions.
On Friday, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy said it targeted a liquefied natural gas carrier traveling south of the Strait of Hormuz along what Tehran described as an “illegal route”.
The Guards also widened their threat, saying for the first time that action against vessels using unauthorized routes would no longer be confined to the strait and that such ships could face punitive measures elsewhere in the region.
Pressure on shipping gives Tehran another means of raising the cost of the blockade without necessarily launching the direct pre-emptive strike advocated by some hardliners.
