The United States and Israel have drawn up detailed plans for a short, intensive bombing campaign against Iran after the November 3 midterm elections, The New York Times reported. Some US planners believe a three-day operation could force Tehran’s hand — but an analyst tells France 24 the premise is flawed, and Tehran is threatening to unveil a ‘father of all bombs’.
Published 22 October 2026 · 18:41 GMT
The United States and Israel have drawn up detailed plans for a short, intensive bombing campaign against Iran after the November 3 midterm elections, The New York Times reported. Some US planners believe a three-day operation could force Tehran’s hand — but an analyst tells France 24 the premise is flawed, and Tehran is threatening to unveil a ‘father of all bombs’.
On 22 October 2026, The New York Times reported that the US and Israeli militaries have drawn up detailed plans for renewed strikes on Iran after the November 3 midterm elections — a short, intensive operation of roughly three days against nuclear, energy, and missile-and-drone targets, with joint drills intensified, a Hegseth–Netanyahu meeting this week, and Trump’s approval still outstanding. Western, Eastern and Global South outlets carried the same core facts within hours.
We diverge: on whether it would work. The planners’ leaked view is that a three-day campaign could do enough economic damage to force Tehran’s concessions.
Whether Trump will approve the operation; whether strikes could come as early as this month or must wait until after the midterms; the final target list — refineries in or out, Pickaxe Mountain, civilian infrastructure; what Iran’s threatened weapon actually is; or whether Washington shares Netanyahu’s regime-change objective at all.
On Wednesday evening, The New York Times reported that the US and Israeli militaries have drawn up detailed plans for renewed strikes on Iran to be carried out after the American midterm elections on November 3. Citing American officials familiar with the discussions, the paper described “a short but intensive operation” lasting roughly three days — aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities, energy infrastructure, and its missile and drone arsenal. The two militaries have stepped up joint exercises, including flights over Iraq to rehearse strike maneuvers, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth discussed the plans with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his visit to Israel this week. The report adds that the United States and Israel came close to launching an attack earlier this month, but President Donald Trump decided to postpone it at the last minute — and that he has not yet approved any new operation. At an airfield on Wednesday night, Trump told NewsNation’s Libbey Dean that the United States was “not negotiating with Iran” and that “something is going to happen very soon, one way or another,” adding: “Most people think it will happen after the elections.” A White House official told the Times the administration does not comment on military plans “that may or may not exist.” The reporting lands weeks after Trump gave Netanyahu his “complete and total endorsement” — and the endorsement, it now appears, came with war plans attached.
The target set is unusually specific for a leak. The likely targets: nuclear facilities — potentially including the deeply buried Pickaxe Mountain site — energy infrastructure, and the missile and drone arsenal. Some officials told the Times that refineries would be spared so as not to push gasoline prices higher: a concession to American pocketbooks weeks before voters go to the polls. A separate Financial Times report, citing three sources, says Trump personally delayed a planned Israeli offensive until after the midterms, and that Israeli officials presented a revised target list this week featuring sites that were not hit during the February offensive — including, per the report, civilian infrastructure. Indian press added another wrinkle: Trump had considered deploying the 22,000-pound GBU-43/B “Mother of All Bombs” against Pickaxe Mountain, though experts question whether it could defeat such a hardened underground site. The timing is doubly electoral. The United States votes on November 3; Israel holds national elections next week, with Netanyahu’s poll numbers sliding. On Wednesday, Netanyahu told an election rally that removing Iran’s threat required “the overthrow of this regime” and said he had issued directives to the Israel Defense Forces, the Mossad and other security agencies — without offering a timeline. In a video he shared of his Sunday conversation with Trump, Netanyahu is heard saying: “Donald, you said we have a job to finish, and we’ll finish it together.” Trump, for his part, warned Iran that the two countries would “soon finish the job” unless Tehran “change their ways, rapidly.”
The central unknown is the president’s pen. The Times notes that Trump has repeatedly vetoed plans to return to major combat this year — yet the paper also reports a small chance the strikes could come as early as this month. The exact target list is unverified: the refinery carve-out, the Pickaxe Mountain option, and the FT’s claim about civilian infrastructure all rest on anonymous sourcing. Tehran’s counter-threat is equally opaque. An IRGC spokesman, Hossein Mohebbi, told the Iranian Student News Network that “the United States has the ‘Mother of All Bombs.’ We will show them the ‘Father of All Bombs,’ and it will definitely be something new for them” — without details of the weapon or its delivery. And the biggest strategic unknown is intent: the American planners’ leaked view is that a three-day campaign could do “enough economic damage to change Iran’s position,” while Netanyahu speaks of regime change — two objectives that imply very different wars.
This confrontation has been running for eight months. The United States and Israel launched the war on February 28; the intense February–April phase drove up energy prices and inflation worldwide and, the Times reports, severely strained the Pentagon’s stockpile of missile interceptors. A June memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran, brokered with Pakistani and Qatari mediation, has since stalled — including over navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. Now the conflict’s next chapter is being timed to two electoral calendars, which changes the risk arithmetic: decisions shaped by polling dates are decisions shaped by domestic audiences, not by military logic alone. For the region, the stakes are concrete: any renewed offensive must confront an Iran that has already survived two rounds of attacks and retains the ability to retaliate — a reality Tehran has underscored even as it publicly insists, as Iran denies collapse is close, that its position is not crumbling. For the world economy, the February lesson stands: when bombs fall near Hormuz, the price is paid at every petrol station on earth.
The planners’ theory is a classic of coercive warfare: inflict enough pain, fast enough, and the adversary’s cost calculus shifts. Some US officials believe one more big round could push Iran’s economy “over the brink” and force concessions. It is precisely this wager that Federico Donelli, associate professor of international relations at the University of Trieste, challenged on France 24 on Wednesday: another three days of strikes, he argued, would not radically change a conflict that eight months of confrontation have failed to resolve — because the real question is whether the pressure is meant to constrain Iran’s capacity or to force it to the negotiating table, and a short campaign cannot do both. The skepticism has company. Analysts told Al Jazeera that while Israel can establish air superiority and strike Iranian targets — RUSI’s Urban Coningham pointed to its offensive stockpiles and aerial-refuelling reach — translating airpower into the overthrow of Iran’s government is another matter entirely. “Airpower can degrade military capabilities but cannot fully destroy offensive capabilities,” said Caglar Kurc of Türkiye’s Abdullah Gul University. “Well-hidden systems would survive.” Netanyahu himself conceded the limit in March: “You can’t do it only from the air.” History offers a cautionary arithmetic: the February–April rounds delivered destruction without settlement — and the side absorbing the bombs has had eight months to harden what matters. Moscow is already positioning itself as the Gulf’s would-be mediator — a reminder that every escalation creates a diplomatic vacancy someone will fill.
Start with the Pentagon’s arithmetic: the spring rounds “severely strained” America’s supply of missile interceptors, a constraint that does not heal in months. Then the market: any renewed exchange near Hormuz re-prices every tanker on earth — the waterway Qatar and France are demanding be reopened is the chokepoint this war keeps circling. Iran’s threatened response has widened the target surface: Tehran has warned of retaliation against data centers and undersea communications cables, a threat that — credible or not — forces Gulf states hosting US assets to recalculate their exposure. The refinery carve-out reveals the political physics: American planners fear the gasoline pump more than they fear Iranian air defenses, while civilian infrastructure sits back on the list if the FT’s reporting holds. Every bomb, in other words, is being aimed through an electoral filter — and the filter distorts the blast pattern.
Three clocks are running. The first is American: the November 3 midterms, after which, Trump himself hinted, “most people think it will happen.” The second is Israeli: national elections next week, with a prime minister promising regime change while his polls sag. The third is military: drill tempo over Iraq, the Hegseth–Netanyahu channel, and the readiness state of forces that were “nearly ready to attack” earlier this month. Watch for Trump’s rhetoric hardening or softening in his airfield-mic moments; for any revival of the stalled June memorandum; and for Iran’s retaliation posture — the Mohebbi boast is theater until it is hardware. The plan exists on paper. Whether it exists in the sky is still a presidential decision.
The West: planners’ confidence meets electoral calendars Western coverage is anchored in the original American reporting: the Times’ account of detailed plans and the FT’s parallel scoop that Trump personally delayed the operation until after the midterms. The Western frame is procedural — approvals, target lists, the refinery carve-out, the White House’s studied no-comment — and it is steeped in the election calendar: every quoted timeline bends around November 3. France 24’s debate slot gave the counterpoint an airing: Donelli’s argument that three days cannot succeed where eight months failed.
The East: Asia counts the cost of another oil shock Singapore’s Business Times carried the story to Asian trading desks within hours — and the East Asian frame is mercantile. The February–April phase drove energy prices and inflation upward across the region; every major Asian importer felt the pass-through. For economies that buy nearly every barrel abroad, the arithmetic of a “short but intensive” operation is measured in shipping insurance, tanker rates and refinery margins, not in target lists.
The Global South: mediation fatigue and the regime-change question Southern outlets read the story through the June memorandum’s collapse — Pakistani and Qatari mediation that stalled — and through suspicion of regime-change rhetoric. Al Jazeera’s analysts probed the gap between Netanyahu’s “primary objective” and the tools at hand. India’s press and Pakistan’s Dawn carried the reporting to readers who live with the fuel-price consequences; Türkiye’s ANews relayed the same.
That the US and Israeli militaries have drawn up detailed plans for renewed strikes on Iran after the November 3 midterm elections — a “short but intensive” operation of about three days aimed at nuclear facilities, energy infrastructure, and missile and drone arsenals. The two sides have stepped up joint exercises, including flights over Iraq, and US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth discussed the plans with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel this week.
Their leaked view is that one more big round of strikes could do enough economic damage to push Iran’s economy “over the brink” and force diplomatic concessions after eight months of conflict — a classic coercion-by-punishment theory. The Financial Times added that the target list has been revised to include sites untouched in the February offensive, potentially including civilian infrastructure.
Federico Donelli is an associate professor of international relations at the University of Trieste. In a France 24 debate on 22 October, he challenged the assumption that three days of strikes could succeed where eight months of confrontation failed, arguing a short campaign “would not radically change [the] conflict” — the real question is whether the pressure aims to constrain Iran’s capacity or to force it to negotiate.
A boast, for now. IRGC spokesman Hossein Mohebbi told Iran’s Student News Network: “The United States has the ‘Mother of All Bombs.’ We will show them the ‘Father of All Bombs,’ and it will definitely be something new for them.” Tehran provided no details about the weapon, its delivery, or whether it exists beyond the statement.
