Iran International
Iranian commentators are questioning whether Donald Trump can end the conflict with a short military operation, arguing that the unresolved confrontation over Hormuz and the threat of economic retaliation could frustrate an attempt to strike Iran and declare victory.
Vahid Khazab, a regular commentator on the state television program Be Vaght-e Iran (Iran Time), argued Monday night that the circumstances that allowed the 12-day war to end no longer applied.
He recalled that Trump declared that conflict over after the United States struck Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility and Tehran retaliated against the Al Udeid air base in Qatar. This time, he said, a strike would leave the question of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz unresolved.
“Suppose he attacks Kuh-e Kolang (Pickaxe Mountain) and then says, ‘That’s it, it’s over.’ Well, what happens to the Strait of Hormuz?” Khazab asked.
“This means the war has not ended. That is why a symbolic move like the one during the 12-day war is not possible,” he added.
Khazab argued that Trump needed to end the conflict either through military action or an agreement, while portraying Iran as unwilling to make concessions in negotiations.
He urged Tehran to convey a warning that renewed attacks would provoke retaliation carrying lasting economic and political costs for Washington.
“Trump must understand this. It is very important that this message be conveyed to him — publicly, officially, secretly, in any way — that if you attack again, Iran will respond in a way that will seriously jeopardize the next two years of your future and America’s future, particularly by causing economic problems, including a recession,” he said.
“This would make him refrain from taking risks, including launching even a short war, regardless of the electoral outcome, in order to protect his legacy.”
Nima Akbarkhani, another regular panelist introduced on the program as a military expert, discussed the possibility of Trump staging a “major, spectacular Hollywood-style operation” to declare victory and end the war.
He argued that even such an operation would leave Trump in a difficult political position if Democrats won the midterm congressional elections.
Mehdi Abbasi, a guest introduced as a US affairs expert, speculated that a Democratic victory could prompt Trump to attack Iran during the roughly two months before the new Congress takes office in January.
Limited strikes and plans for further attacks
The discussion came amid limited US military action and reports of preparations for a potentially broader confrontation.
The United States struck Iran’s Qeshm Island on Monday as part of a series of limited attacks in recent weeks, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing US officials.
Trump said Tuesday that US forces had destroyed an Iranian anti-aircraft installation that he said had taken about two months to build.
The New York Times separately reported Tuesday, citing US officials, that US Central Command had a plan to begin strikes against Iran as early as Wednesday, after the midterm elections. The reported plan did not establish that Trump had ordered an attack.
Responding to the Qeshm strike, Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said Tuesday that Iran remained in a state of war and retained the right to defend itself until military aggression against it had ended completely and permanently.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Monday that reports of plans for further military action against Iran were deeply concerning and urged renewed diplomatic efforts.
Tehran holds to its demands
Tehran and Washington continue to exchange messages through intermediaries, including Qatar. Trump and Vice President JD Vance have expressed optimism about diplomacy, while Iranian officials insist Washington must meet Tehran’s conditions.
Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said Tuesday that Washington’s response to Tehran’s demands was unconvincing. He said the Strait of Hormuz would reopen only after the United States explicitly addressed and implemented Iran’s seven conditions.
Vance sent Rezaei a letter through Qatar several days earlier. Rezaei did not specify whether his Tuesday remarks referred to that letter or another message conveyed through intermediaries.
Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf also warned Tuesday that Tehran’s response to a possible US attack would be unpredictable.
President Masoud Pezeshkian, meanwhile, reiterated that Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had granted his government additional powers to pursue negotiations.
Pezeshkian said his administration would seek to resolve the conflict through diplomacy but did not specify the scope of that authority.
His emphasis on negotiations drew criticism from hardline commentator and university professor Foad Izadi, who argued that such statements could help Washington choose the timing of another attack.
In a post responding to Pezeshkian, Izadi cited Trump’s remarks that oil prices were falling because people believed there would be no war with Iran and that Tehran wanted an agreement quickly.
Izadi accused Pezeshkian of helping Trump lower public expectations of war and manage oil prices by repeatedly emphasizing negotiations. He warned that Washington could attack again in the middle of diplomatic exchanges, at a time of its own choosing.
Speculation over nuclear weapons
Some Iranian commentary has also raised the possibility of nuclear weapons being used in a renewed confrontation, although Gharibabadi said Tuesday that Washington had not announced an official position on using such weapons against Iran.
Hossein Ajorlou, an international relations academic, told Fararu that a broad but short operation using powerful conventional weapons remained the most likely scenario.
He nevertheless speculated that Washington could consider tactical nuclear weapons if it failed to secure a quick result and reached a military stalemate.
Ajorlou emphasized that he considered conventional weapons, including bunker-busting bombs and precision-guided munitions, the likelier option.
Limits of a change in Congress
Several Iranian commentators have cautioned that a shift toward Democrats in Congress would not necessarily prevent another military confrontation.
Ali Hassan Heydari, an international affairs analyst writing for the hardline Siraj24 website, argued that victory for either party should not be interpreted as a fundamental change in Washington’s strategic approach.
A Democratic victory could nevertheless raise the political and financial costs of continuing the war and restrict Trump’s freedom of action, he wrote.
“This matters for Iran’s calculations, but it should not lead to a strategic miscalculation, because the outcome of the war and the question of the Strait of Hormuz will not be determined solely by the composition of Congress,” Heydari wrote.
“The elections may change the rules of Trump’s game, but resolving the confrontation with Iran requires decisions and agreements that go beyond the US ballot box.”
Amirali Abolfath, a US affairs expert, similarly cautioned against expecting a change in congressional control to end the conflict.
“We should not place too much hope in the idea that a change in the composition of Congress alone will bring the war to a halt, although these changes are not without effect and should not be viewed in absolute, black-and-white terms,” he told ISNA.
Tehran’s newspapers agree across factions that negotiating with the United States is legitimate, but are deeply divided over whether diplomacy can still prevent war, as Qatar said on Tuesday that both sides were reviewing its proposals.
While reformist and moderate newspapers, including Etemad, Shargh and Arman Melli, explore ways to reach an agreement, hardline outlets such as Hamshahri and Kayhan appear to be preparing the public for conflict.
Iranian negotiators left Doha on Sunday after three days of talks with Qatari mediators, and a Qatari team traveled to Tehran on Monday night before returning to Doha.
“Both parties are reviewing suggestions we as mediators proposed,” Qatar’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson said on Tuesday, adding that differences remained but talks were continuing. A senior Iranian official told Reuters the same day that Tehran and Washington were still far from a deal, and that Iran would not accept what he called Washington’s “excessive demands.”
Tehran says negotiations should be based on its seven-step September plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and end the US naval blockade, on a faster timetable proposed by Qatar. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has suggested reopening the strait within two days of an agreement, leaving nuclear issues for a second phase.
President Donald Trump has said there will be no further strikes before Tuesday’s midterm elections, but has not ruled out military action afterward. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says no decision has been made. US allies in the Persian Gulf have reportedly been told to prepare for possible strikes after November 4. Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has ordered Iran’s armed forces to prepare for war across an extended front.
The immediate focus in Tehran is a letter from US Vice President JD Vance to Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council. After a week of confusion over who was leading negotiations, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said on Monday that Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf remained in charge, but that Rezaei would answer Vance because the letter had been sent to him. Ghalibaf has not spoken publicly about a nuclear agreement for weeks.
In a report headlined “We Must Negotiate,” the reformist daily Etemad set out three positions. Hossein Nourani-Nejad, deputy head of the reformist Ettehad-e Mellat party, described Iran’s choices as surrender, warmongering or de-escalation. He backed President Masoud Pezeshkian’s “smart management of hostility” and criticized hardliners and the state broadcaster for raising the idea of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Asadollah Badamchian, a conservative politician of the Motalefeh party, argued that negotiation was a tool, not a principle, and was acceptable if it served national interests. He read Vance’s letter as evidence that Washington’s pressure strategy had failed, but warned against “naive optimism.” The final decision, he said, rested with the Supreme National Security Council and the Supreme Leader.
Ali Sufi, a reformist politician, was more hopeful. He identified five elements in Vance’s letter, including direct talks, lifting the blockade and reopening Hormuz, and argued that Iran was approaching a turning point, with both the Supreme Leader and Rezaei calling for an end to “neither war nor peace.” Including the nuclear issue could complicate negotiations, he cautioned, but would probably be unavoidable.
Hardline newspapers largely ignored the letter. Kayhan read his latest orders to military commanders as ending America’s ability to launch limited strikes and then withdraw. It dismissed US threats as psychological warfare, insisting Iran did not seek war but did not fear it.
Javan, a daily close to the Revolutionary Guards, called the threats a “psychological bombardment of the negotiating table” and said Tehran had rejected Qatar’s five-day confidence-building proposal.
The reformist outlet Eslahat News quoted lawmaker Fada-Hossein Maleki, who called the decision to send the letter to Rezaei a US conspiracy to divide Iranian officials.
Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, a former chairman of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, offered a darker assessment in Shargh. Intensive Qatari mediation, he argued, reflected alarm rather than progress: the mediators had, he said, glimpsed both sides’ plans for a new war.
He described Vance’s approach as Trump’s attempt to secure a diplomatic success before the election, but said Washington’s proposed concessions were too limited to overcome mistrust. Pointing to military deployments, he declared war “certain.”
The only way out, Falahatpisheh said, was a regional agreement involving the United States and guaranteed by China. Russia, he argued, sees the region through the prism of the Ukraine war and is a spoiler rather than a credible guarantor.
China has around $480 billion in economic ties with the region, imports six to eight million barrels of Persian Gulf oil a day and has major investments in Qatar’s side of the gas field it shares with Iran. Falahatpisheh argued that rivalry with Washington gave Beijing both the interest and the influence to guarantee an agreement, despite suggestions that China might prefer to keep America occupied in the Middle East rather than focused on Taiwan.
Iranian observers have often argued that China puts its own interests ahead of Iran’s. Javan reported that a Chinese special envoy would visit Iran and the region soon, and cited a joint call by China and Oman for a return to the Islamabad memorandum.
In Arman Melli, the economist Mahmoud Jamsaz warned that Tehran was misreading Washington. Officials who assume America’s economic problems leave Trump no choice but to accept Iran’s conditions, he said, risk wasting the mediators’ last opportunity. Trump might instead decide that war is preferable to the status quo.
During the closure of Hormuz, Jamsaz noted, China drew on its strategic reserves and cut imports, countering forecasts of oil at $200 to $300 a barrel and weakening Iran’s leverage.
A prolonged confrontation, he warned, would bring foreign-currency shortages, a falling rial, runaway inflation and the destruction of the middle class, weakening society’s ability to withstand the crisis. Iran’s distorted state capitalism, he argued, fails the test of a “resistance economy”; budget deficits and the misery index show little economic resilience.
Neither war, a prolonged frozen conflict nor a Korean-style armistice serves Iran’s national interests, Jamsaz concluded. Only negotiations aimed at ending the confrontation offer a way forward.
Iranian military officials and hardline lawmakers have warned that a new confrontation with the United States could extend beyond the Middle East, while conservative media have begun identifying American military facilities in Europe as potential targets.
The warnings follow a statement attributed to Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei on Saturday, ordering Iran's armed forces to prepare for retaliation without geographic restrictions and expand their list of potential US and Israeli targets.
The hardline daily Kayhan went further, arguing that American and NATO facilities "in the heart of Europe" could be targeted if US and Israeli attacks on Iran resume.
The newspaper named military facilities in Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Albania, Italy and Britain, as well as the joint US-British base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
Military commanders signal broader reach
Iran's Army spokesman, Mohammad Akraminia, said renewed fighting could spread beyond the countries and territories involved in previous rounds of the war.
"In the recent war, the conflict extended from the occupied territories to US bases in regional countries, but if another attack takes place, the geography of the war could expand beyond West Asia," he said.
He added that Iran was updating its list of potential US and Israeli targets.
A senior Basij commander, Ghassem Ghorayshi, also said Iran's armed forces would no longer be bound by previous limits on missile range, target selection or the scale of operations.
"In the past, target selection and missile ranges were restricted," he said, attributing those limits to decisions made under former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
"From now on, the armed forces will have no restrictions on striking targets, determining missile range or the scale of missile operations," he added.
The remarks do not by themselves establish that Iran has developed new long-range missiles or formally changed its military doctrine.
Iranian newspapers identify European bases
A separate report in the newspaper Hamshahri also raised the possibility of targeting American military infrastructure in Europe, including air bases, logistics centers and support facilities.
The newspaper cited speculation that Iranian missiles could reach targets 4,000 to 5,000 kilometers away, significantly beyond the roughly 2,000-kilometer range Iran previously described as a self-imposed limit.
However, those longer-range estimates remain disputed, and the ability to extend a missile's theoretical range does not necessarily establish its accuracy, payload or operational effectiveness.
The reports reflect a broader shift in Iranian rhetoric toward threatening American military infrastructure outside the Middle East.
Western defense experts have offered more cautious assessments of Iran's long-range strike capabilities. The Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies lists Iran's principal ballistic missiles with ranges generally around 2,000 kilometers, with some variants potentially reaching 3,000 kilometers.
Britain’s Royal United Services Institute has said strikes as far as the UK may be theoretically possible, but would involve smaller, less accurate warheads traveling through defended airspace.
Lawmakers warn of wider conflict
Hassan Ghashghavi, spokesperson for parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, warned that renewed fighting could spread far beyond the countries already affected by the war.
"I don't want to use the term World War III, but the geography of the war would be almost on the scale of World War III," he told Iranian media.
He said another conflict would be considerably wider than the previous 12-day and 40-day rounds of fighting.
Ghashghavi also suggested that Iranian retaliation could affect civilian infrastructure and everyday life in countries involved in attacks on Iran.
"If they leave your people in darkness, you should leave their people in darkness too," he said.
In another warning, Tehran lawmaker Kamran Ghazanfari said Iran could retaliate against US assets in Europe and potentially on American territory if Washington used military bases in Arab states to attack Iran.
Ghazanfari also speculated that Iran might already possess nuclear weapons, without providing evidence. Tehran has not officially announced that it possesses a nuclear weapon.
Tehran links warnings to negotiating demands
The military warnings have come alongside renewed Iranian demands in negotiations aimed at ending the war.
Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said Tehran had delivered a "firm and rational response" to Washington and that "the ball is now in America's court" to prevent renewed fighting.
Iran's armed forces chief, Ali Abdollahi, separately outlined five conditions for lasting regional security: an end to fighting on all fronts, particularly in Lebanon and Gaza; the lifting of sanctions and release of frozen assets; war reparations; recognition of Iranian authority over the Strait of Hormuz; and guarantees against renewed attacks under a new regional security framework.
The demands come amid diplomatic efforts involving Qatar and other mediators, although a senior Iranian official told Reuters on Tuesday that Tehran and Washington remained far from an agreement.
US Vice President JD Vance’s letter to Iran’s national security chief, Mohsen Rezaei, has fueled speculation that Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf is being sidelined as Tehran’s chief negotiator, while officials deny any change in the negotiating structure.
Ghalibaf, who also serves as parliament speaker, has in recent months been identified as the head of Iran’s negotiating delegation. However, following the delivery of Vance’s letter to the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, ultra-hardline media outlets said that Rezaei had replaced him in negotiations with Washington.
The speculation intensified after Ghalibaf was absent from an unprecedented meeting last week involving the Pakistani army chief, Saudi Arabia’s defense minister and the head of Turkey’s intelligence service (MIT), representing three members of the Mecca Pact. Rezaei and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi attended.
Ghalibaf’s supporters have argued that the so-called Tehran Summit was unrelated to negotiations with the United States and instead concerned Iran’s possible accession to the Mecca Pact.
Similar rumors that Ghalibaf was being removed from Iran’s negotiating team emerged in May before being officially dismissed.
Officials insist Ghalibaf remains in charge
Iranian officials have maintained that Ghalibaf continues to lead the country’s negotiating team.
Araghchi told Al Jazeera on Saturday, October 31, that Tehran still regarded Ghalibaf as its chief negotiator and that Rezaei fully supported this arrangement.
Describing the American initiative to establish contact, the foreign minister said: “The American side’s attempt to open the door to dialogue and understanding more broadly is a positive step.”
However, he warned: “If Washington’s goal in sending this letter is to stir up discord, it would be yet another mistake to add to its previous ones.”
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Monday that Ghalibaf remained Iran’s chief negotiator and that the country's diplomatic process was managed through the Supreme National Security Council.
Manouchehr Mottaki, a member of parliament’s National Security Commission who is aligned with conservative hardliners, also dismissed reports that Ghalibaf had been excluded from decision-making.
Speaking to the reformist Ensaf News website on Monday, he said: “Ghalibaf’s significant role in decision-making after Rezaei’s appointment demonstrates that he continues to play an effective part in this process.”
Hardliners welcome Rezaei’s growing role
Despite official assurances, Vance’s letter has prompted some hardline outlets and supporters of the Paydari Front to welcome Rezaei’s growing role and the prospect of diminished influence for Ghalibaf.
Raja News, a website close to the Paydari Party, wrote on October 29 that recent developments demonstrated that “the center of gravity of foreign policy during wartime has shifted from the negotiating team to the secretariat of the Supreme National Security Council”.
The website also drew a distinction between two recent meetings with Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei. It said that during his meeting with Ghalibaf, Khamenei had emphasized resolving people’s livelihood problems through parliament and the government, as well as advancing relations with strategic partners. By contrast, it said, discussions with Rezaei had focused on “fulfilling Iran’s seven new conditions” in negotiations with Washington.
Nobonyad, another news website associated with radical conservatives, reported on October 30 that the media committee for the Islamabad negotiations, which consisted of associates and advisers of the parliament speaker, had been dissolved on the orders of a “senior security official”.
Raja News subsequently published an article titled “Why Does Support for Rezaei Anger Ghalibaf’s Supporters?”, accusing Ghalibaf’s supporters of portraying backing for Rezaei as a political maneuver motivated by satisfaction among his rivals over Ghalibaf’s diminishing role in wartime diplomacy.
The website also leveled a series of accusations against the parliament speaker. It alleged that he had accepted a ceasefire without the Supreme Leader’s authorization, falsely claimed in a Supreme National Security Council statement that the United States had fully accepted Iran’s conditions, entered nuclear negotiations in Islamabad contrary to the Supreme Leader’s instructions, and used the issue of Lebanon’s rescue as a pretext for traveling to Switzerland and continuing direct negotiations with representatives of US President Donald Trump.
Raja News wrote that Ghalibaf and his political allies could have enjoyed the same support from revolutionary forces as Rezaei, particularly under wartime conditions. However, it said they had chosen to place their personal views above the Supreme Leader’s principles and consequently became the target of what it described as “one of the harshest reprimands in the history of the Islamic Republic,” referring to Mojtaba Khamenei’s June 18 message in which he said he had held a different view on the agreement with the United States but authorized it after the president, on behalf of himself and other members of the Supreme National Security Council, gave assurances and accepted responsibility for it.
The website also criticized Araghchi’s recent statement that Tehran was still giving diplomacy an opportunity to succeed.
It described the foreign minister’s remarks as a “special gift to Trump on the eve of his electoral defeat” and a “direct signal of military weakness to the Pentagon and Tel Aviv operations rooms”.
“It is regrettable that Seyed Abbas Araghchi’s behavior at this critical juncture is exactly like that of someone who enters the scene whenever the enemy is on the verge of collapse and facing danger, in order to protect its interests,” it wrote.
Moderates reject claims of a power struggle
Ghalibaf and his close associates have not directly commented on the issue. However, the moderate conservative website Khabar Online described Raja News’s support for Rezaei as “superficial”, arguing that the website was using its support for Rezaei’s positions as a means of undermining and weakening Ghalibaf.
In a commentary published on Monday under the headline “The Duality That Never Materialized: Ghalibaf and Rezaei on the Same Side”, the moderate Asr-e Iran website argued that if the American letter had been intended to create divisions within Iran’s decision-making structure, that objective had effectively failed.
It added that even if Washington had no such intention, some domestic political factions had attempted to exploit the development to manufacture a rivalry between the two officials, despite their public rejection of such a division.
According to Asr-e Iran, Rezaei’s message in a television interview on Saturday was clear: an expanded role for the Supreme National Security Council, or the decision to address its secretary directly, did not mean that he was competing with the head of the negotiating team.
The website argued that although foreign governments could choose whom to address in their correspondence, they could not dictate Iran’s internal decision-making structure.
“The Vance letter could have become an issue for polarization. Some domestic factions also tried to create this duality. But the coordinated positions of Rezaei, Araghchi and Baghaei demonstrated that attempts to manufacture divisions among officials, at least in this case, face a serious obstacle: a division of responsibilities is possible, and differences in language are natural, but Iran’s final decision is one,” Asr-e Iran wrote.
Some Arab states have warned Iran that they could retaliate individually or collectively if Tehran targets their infrastructure, as Persian Gulf countries prepare for the possibility of renewed US strikes and Iranian retaliation, the Wall Street Journal reported Monday.
Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have been conducting security drills, including at airports, while some attendees at a major energy conference in Abu Dhabi were cutting short their stays on government advice. Schools in Riyadh were also set to remain online this week as Saudi Arabia faces attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis. UAE presidential adviser Anwar Gargash said his country hoped diplomatic efforts would succeed but was “braced for the worst.”
The warnings come against a backdrop of continuing attacks around the Strait of Hormuz. A tanker was struck by two unidentified projectiles near a Saudi port late Sunday, while another vessel was hit by an unidentified projectile off Oman early Monday. Iranian state media also reported Monday that an oil tanker caught fire after striking a mine in the eastern part of the strait.
The heightened preparations coincide with diplomatic efforts to prevent renewed fighting. Iranian negotiators left Doha on Sunday, with a draft proposal still circulating for feedback and a follow-up meeting possible. An Iranian source cited by the IRGC-affiliated Fars news agency said Monday that indirect communications with Washington had produced no diplomatic breakthrough and that Tehran continued to insist on its seven conditions. A third Qatari delegation in a week was heading to Tehran on Monday as Doha sought to bring Tehran and Washington closer to an agreement to end the war, Al-Araby Al-Jadeed reported, citing an informed Iranian source.
Axios reported that Qatari mediators had drafted an agreement outlining a three-day sequence of confidence-building measures aimed at resuming direct US-Iran negotiations. Trump told Axios he was “in no rush” to decide whether to resume fighting with Iran, saying: “One way or the other, we will do something, but there is no rush.”
The diplomatic push has also exposed differing views within the Trump administration over how to proceed. CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Secretary of State Marco Rubio favor maintaining economic pressure without either a new war or a deal, while Vice President JD Vance and White House envoy Steve Witkoff are urging Trump to move toward an agreement, Axios reported.
Vance said Monday that Washington had made “some progress” toward a negotiated settlement. “The President and I both feel pretty good about the prospects for potentially coming to a negotiated settlement,” Vance said, adding: “We've certainly made some progress. We'll see if we can make some more.”
Despite those signs of progress, the possibility of renewed US military action remains. The Journal reported that Trump has been leaning toward a large attack on Iran after the US midterm election but has not decided whether to proceed. Trump told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a call Saturday that he wanted to first give continuing diplomatic efforts a chance to succeed, according to people familiar with the call.
Israel’s UN envoy denied that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was pressing Donald Trump to resume strikes on Iran and dismissed claims that a nuclear attack was under consideration, while mediators pursued a deal ahead of Tuesday’s US midterm elections.
“Prime Minister Netanyahu is not pressing President Trump. President Trump knows exactly what he wants to achieve and how he wants to achieve it,” Danny Danon told Al Arabiya English.
“Israel will collaborate with the United States. We will support the decision of the United States, but it is not us pressing anyone,” he added.
Danon’s remarks followed an Axios report Sunday, citing an Israeli and a US source, that Netanyahu was urging Trump to strike Iran immediately after the November 3 elections, while the US president preferred to allow negotiations to continue.
The Israeli source described the leaders’ Saturday phone call as “tough,” while the US source called it “direct.”
Trump confirmed Sunday that he had spoken with Netanyahu about Iran, describing their conversation as “a very good talk,” without providing further details.
Danon also rejected a claim by US commentator Tucker Carlson on X that a nuclear strike against Iran was being considered, calling the idea “delusional.”
“No one is even discussing it in the US, nor in Israel,” he said.
Washington weighs military options and diplomacy
Trump said Saturday that negotiations with Iran were “going fine” and that he was in no hurry to resume military action, although he said Washington still needed to target one or two sites, including the suspected underground nuclear complex at Pickaxe Mountain.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Saturday that Trump had not decided whether to launch further strikes.
“He hasn’t made a decision,” Rubio told reporters in Atlanta, adding that Washington preferred to resolve the conflict peacefully.
Rubio said diplomatic contacts had remained active, often through intermediaries, and declined to set a deadline for negotiations.
Iran says diplomatic contacts remain active
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Monday that consultations through mediators, including Qatar and Pakistan, remained intensive, after several days of talks with Qatari officials ended without a breakthrough.
“Everything depends on the political rationality of Washington,” Araghchi said, according to the state-run IRNA news agency.
Araghchi said a revised proposal developed through mediation could allow the Strait of Hormuz to reopen within two days if Washington accepts Iran’s conditions.
Tehran’s earlier seven-day plan called for Washington to lift its blockade of Iranian ports, release frozen Iranian assets and waive sanctions on Iranian oil sales before negotiations resumed.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also said Monday that Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had granted the government “certain authorities” regarding peace talks with the United States, according to IRNA.
Pezeshkian said Iran would seek to resolve the conflict through dialogue, without specifying the scope of those powers.
An Iranian source cited by the Revolutionary Guards-affiliated Fars news agency said Monday that indirect communications with Washington had produced no breakthrough and that Tehran still insisted on its seven conditions for progress. Exchanging messages through intermediaries was routine, the source said.
Despite the diplomatic contacts, Danon said in his Monday interview that Israel remained prepared for military action regardless of uncertainty surrounding the formation of a new government following last week’s Israeli elections.
“The military is prepared, we are ready and if we will need to protect our people, we will do it,” he said.
