Connect with us

Middle East

Iran weighs 1980 hostage crisis playbook for US midterms

Published

on

The Iranian leadership aims to use the US midterm elections as leverage to increase pressure on US President Donald Trump and secure more favourable terms in the conflict.

According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, Tehran is turning to a tactic similar to the strategy it pursued during the 1980 American hostage crisis.

During the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, the US Embassy in Tehran was stormed on 4 November, and 66 American diplomats were taken hostage.

The militants demanded the extradition of the ousted Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whilst a military operation launched by the US armed forces to rescue the hostages ended in failure.

The hostages were released only on 20 January 1981, the day Ronald Reagan was sworn into office, following 444 days in captivity. The crisis severed diplomatic ties between the US and Iran and stood among the primary factors behind President Jimmy Carter’s defeat in the 1980 election.

Those events are regarded as one of the earliest examples in US political history of an “October surprise”, a term used for eleventh-hour developments capable of directly altering election outcomes.

Today, the Tehran government is also taking into account the decline in American public support for war, driven by rising petrol prices. Ellie Geranmayeh, an Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, argues that the Iranian leadership does not wish to ease pressure on Trump ahead of the November midterm elections.

“As time runs out, the prevailing view in Tehran is, ‘Why should we relieve pressure on Trump to get him to make concessions? Let us make him feel this pain at the ballot box,'” Geranmayeh evaluated.

Nevertheless, Tehran appears to be approaching a strategic crossroads. Iranian officials previously calculated that they could endure the US blockade for approximately five months without suffering economically devastating consequences.

Vali Nasr, who previously took part in informal contacts with Iran at the US Department of State, notes that Tehran will have to choose between making concessions or opting for military escalation to minimise any compromises in potential future negotiations.

Nasr says that even if Tehran is compelled to return to the negotiating table and make concessions, it aims to keep those compromises limited by applying greater military pressure.

Within Iran’s borders, deteriorating economic conditions are straining the administration. As the rial depreciates, inflation is climbing, petrol shortages are emerging, and President Masoud Pezeshkian states that trade volume has recorded a decline of between 25% and 35%.

Civilian leaders, including Pezeshkian and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, want negotiations with the US to resume.

Conversely, Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi, an adviser to the commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, stated in August that the confrontation with the US could extend until the end of Trump’s presidential term.

Arguing that this choice would ensure Iran’s security, Naqdi stated that they seek to attain a level of deterrence where a potential adversary comprehends the costs of attacking Iran.

Regarding attacks on commercial vessels and allegations of international maritime law violations, General Naqdi claimed that in the event of war, the country could place any transport route it perceives as a threat under its control, adding: “This rule applies to every place in the world where war is being waged.”

The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had previously remarked in private conversations that he could end the war even without a nuclear agreement, presenting the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to navigation as a victory for the US.

The Republican leader had nevertheless declared halting Iran’s nuclear programme as one of the fundamental objectives of the military operation.

In a statement on 2 September, Trump announced that he had ended his pursuit of reaching a peace deal with Iran.

Stating that he preferred establishing near-total control over the Strait of Hormuz and weakening Iran’s economy further, Trump shortly before those remarks initiated Operation “Economic Pariah”, aimed at cutting off Tehran’s external revenue. Trump described the move as “the most devastating economic operation ever conducted against a country”.

Middle East

US warns Gulf allies of possible Iran strikes after midterms

Published

on

The US administration has notified several Gulf allies that it could launch a short but intensive military campaign against Iran immediately following the congressional midterm elections on 3 November. Washington urged regional states to prepare for this contingency.

According to a Wall Street Journal report citing sources with direct knowledge of the discussions, the warning did not specify which countries were briefed. Meanwhile, military activity on the ground has accelerated alongside these disclosures.

The US military has deployed a Patriot air defence battery from Texas to the Middle East, while beginning to pull its personnel back from exposed bases within range of Iranian ballistic missiles and drones to more secure positions. These moves reinforce indications that the US and Israel are preparing for a direct, wide-scale confrontation with Tehran.

The White House declined to comment on sensitive military plans whose existence has not been officially confirmed. An official statement emphasized, however, that President Donald Trump keeps all options on the table to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

The New York Times reported last week that US and Israeli armed forces have stepped up joint military drills based on a short but intensive operational scenario. Potential targets identified by the newspaper include Iran’s nuclear facilities, critical energy infrastructure, and production centres for missiles and armed unmanned aerial vehicles.

The same report noted that while seen as an unlikely outcome, Trump could approve the operation before the end of October, though he might also opt against authorizing any military action. In recent months, Trump has repeatedly suspended decisions to re-enter active hostilities at the last moment.

The current active conflict between the two nations was triggered on 28 February by a joint US-Israeli strike on Iranian targets. Trump explained the primary rationale for the operation as ensuring that Tehran can under no circumstances attain a nuclear weapon.

These military actions follow the 12-day war fought in June 2025. During that air campaign, Washington directly targeted and struck Iran’s primary nuclear installations at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi outlined the latest situation on the ground during an address to the UN Security Council. Grossi stated that the agency has found no evidence indicating that Tehran is repairing or rebuilding from scratch the nuclear infrastructure damaged in the 2025 and 2026 strikes.

Criticizing the continued exclusion of monitors, Grossi urged Iran to grant international inspectors immediate access to all its nuclear sites, including damaged locations. Since the US bombardment in June 2025, the IAEA has been unable to independently verify the current status of Tehran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

According to official agency records, Iran held 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity prior to the June 2025 war. In nuclear physics, 60% enrichment is technically regarded as exceptionally close to the roughly 90% threshold required for weapons grade.

Following the bombings, Tehran barred international inspectors from entering the struck facilities. Because of this restriction, the regulatory body cannot ascertain how much of this critical stockpile remains intact or where it is currently stored.

Mounting military costs fuel domestic political pressure

President Trump maintains that the June 2025 air strikes demolished Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Nevertheless, the prolonged military operations have destabilized economic conditions, and soaring domestic fuel prices in particular are placing the governing Republican Party under severe political strain ahead of the midterms.

Trump has pushed back against criticism over rising energy costs, arguing that absorbing higher prices at the pump is necessary to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear arms.

Pentagon budget records reviewed by Reuters indicate that total US military spending on the Iran conflict has surpassed $47 billion. This figure stands 25% above official estimates released by defence officials in July.

The largest portion of total expenditures, $29 billion, was allocated to replenishing depleted munitions stocks, while $6 billion went toward replacing worn military hardware. It remains unclear whether repair bills for US bases damaged by retaliatory Iranian missile and kamikaze drone strikes are included in this official $47 billion sum.

Continue Reading

Middle East

US military operations against Iran reach $47 billion

Published

on

The total cost of US military operations against Iran has reached $47 billion.

According to a report by the American newspaper The Hill, citing an assessment by US Central Command (CENTCOM), the operation’s budget grew by more than $3 billion in the past month alone.

A detailed breakdown of the spending appears in a document prepared by the command. The largest share of the budget is accounted for by munitions shipments, totalling $29 billion.

Additional expenses arising directly from conducting the military operation stand at approximately $12 billion, whilst replacing lost military equipment and gear requires $6.1 billion.

Funding allocated to support military personnel deployed to the region, air transport, communications, and transport operations within the operational theatre is calculated at $7.6 billion.

Moreover, this overall total does not include the expenditure required to repair and rebuild US military bases in the Middle East.

According to information reported by The Hill, US President Donald Trump is weighing the possibility of launching fresh strikes against Iran following the country’s midterm elections.

Trump had previously described the military operation against Iran as one of the best decisions of his presidency.

Congress steps in as budget deficit deepens

The bill for the operation climbed swiftly in a short period. In a statement on 22 July, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced that the cost of the Iran campaign had reached $37.5 billion.

Hegseth noted that the figure covered both expenses already incurred and projected spending through the end of the fiscal year on 30 September.

A day before Hegseth’s statement, The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon was facing a severe cash crunch due to the war with Iran.

The newspaper reported that the White House had requested an emergency supplemental appropriation of $67 billion from Congress to cover military expenses, warning that the military would be forced to cut other spending items if the request were rejected.

Following these developments, the House of Representatives approved a $1.15 trillion defence budget.

The relevant resolution includes allocating $73 billion in additional funding to the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, primarily to cover the costs of the war being waged with Iran.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Over 3,000 Palestinians displaced as Israel’s Hebron siege hits day 5

Published

on

The Israeli army’s siege of the city of Hebron in the occupied West Bank has entered its fifth day. More than 3,000 Palestinians have been forced to flee their homes as raids, house demolitions, and forced evictions continue across the city.

According to data shared by Hebron Municipality on 26 October, the number of displaced people has reached 3,189. More than 200 of them are infants.

Municipal authorities announced that roughly half of the total displaced population consists of children and youths under the age of 18.

Palestinian officials in the besieged city declared a state of emergency and established an urgent crisis desk.

Rami Khamis, a member of the crisis desk, highlighted civic solidarity in remarks to Al Jazeera, saying local residents and benefactors who refused to let their fellow citizens stay in temporary shelters opened their homes to displaced families.

A Palestinian forced to abandon his home in haste recounted his ordeal to Al Jazeera on 26 October.

Explaining that they fled with only the clothes on their backs, the resident said their savings, household goods, and official documents were left behind. After placing his family in a relatively safe place, he attempted to return to salvage their belongings, but could not reach the house because the area was no longer safe.

The siege began immediately after an attack on 23 October in which two Israeli soldiers were killed. The two Palestinians who carried out the assault were killed at the scene by Israeli forces.

Citing this incident, the Israeli army blockaded the city and launched wide-ranging operations. The British newspaper The Guardian described the measures carried out in Hebron as “collective punishment”.

Hamas official Mahmoud Mardawi also condemned both the siege in Hebron and the military incursions spreading across the occupied West Bank in a statement on 26 October.

Emphasising that these steps constitute collective punishment, Mardawi warned that escalating tensions on the ground could lead to grave consequences.

Mardawi further argued that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government are using these attacks for propaganda and electoral calculations, stating that military pressure will not break Palestinian resilience and that calculations regarding annexation and mass expulsion will fail to achieve their goal.

Operation rift in Israeli leadership

As the blockade entered its fifth day, a divergence of opinion emerged between Israel’s military brass and the government.

According to a report in the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clashed over the future of the operation.

Zamir argued that the military campaign on the ground had delivered whatever benefit it could provide and that it was now time to bring it to an end.

Military officials said tangible gains achieved throughout the operation remained limited, indicating that whether to sustain the current push required reassessment.

Indeed, the newspaper reported that Israeli forces managed to seize only a limited number of weapons in the city, failing to uncover any unusual arsenals or major arms caches.

However, Chief of Staff Zamir’s proposal to end the operation was rejected. Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Defence Minister dismissed the recommendation and decided to continue the offensive.

At least 70 Palestinians have been detained in Hebron since the siege and operations began. The Israeli army is also continuing extensive demolition activities targeting civilian homes across the city.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey