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”.

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir has unveiled a plan aimed at removing the vast majority of the population from Gaza through a process he termed “voluntary migration”.

The right-wing minister’s plan also includes the establishment of a dedicated ministry for the matter.

Dubbed “Disengagement 710″—referencing both Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza and the 7 October 2023 Al-Aqsa Flood operation, which many on the Israeli right blame partly on that withdrawal—the plan aims to move 250,000 Gaza residents out of the territory within the first year, 1.11 million within three years, and 1.86 million within seven years.

“Instead of dreaming of peace right now, we need actions of migration. Instead of digging tunnels, it is now time to pack suitcases,” Ben Gvir said.

The minister added that the establishment of a “Ministry of Migration” and its leadership would be among the foremost demands Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) would present to join the next government.

Referring to Rehavam Ze’evi, the assassinated far-right minister who supported the ethnic cleansing and population transfer of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, Ben Gvir said: “It is a pity they did not listen to Gandhi. It is now time to admit it: Gandhi was right!”

The party promises emigrants a “resettlement package” including “travel assistance, initial housing, vocational training, employment, and support for up to 24 months”.

It also pledges that host countries will receive payments based on the number of Gaza residents they accept.

According to the party, Türkiye, Ethiopia, the Congo, and certain unnamed Arab countries are being considered as potential destinations.

Otzma Yehudit states that the proposal requires an initial investment from Israel of 10 billion NIS ($3 billion), followed by co-financing of up to 50 billion NIS ($15.2 billion) depending on the level of international participation.

Ben-Gvir continued:

“At first, I was treated like a daydreaming extremist. Then one day everything changed: President Trump announced publicly that encouraging migration was a solution to the Gaza problem. Suddenly, Ben Gvir’s plan became legitimate. Suddenly, everyone became Ben Gvir.”

The proposal comes a day after Defence Minister Israel Katz stated that plans to facilitate mass migration from Gaza were still under discussion and had only been “frozen” by Trump, who first suggested relocating Gaza’s roughly 2.3 million residents elsewhere in February 2025.

That proposal had led to the establishment of a Defence Ministry directorate tasked with facilitating what officials termed “voluntary migration”.

Katz later abandoned that proposal due to international opposition and the lack of countries willing to accept the migration.

Israel does not view Türkiye as an “enemy” but increasingly assesses it as a “competitor”.

A senior Israeli diplomat expressed this view to Ynet on Wednesday against the backdrop of mounting tensions over Syria, Turkish naval activities in the Mediterranean, and the economic, legal, and diplomatic measures Ankara has taken against Israel.

The official stated:

“Türkiye is not an enemy state, but it is certainly a competitor. Türkiye has taken steps against us in the economic, legal, and diplomatic spheres.”

The official noted that Azerbaijan, which maintains close relations with both Israel and Türkiye, had previously served at times as a conduit for conveying messages between the two countries, but that such contacts are steadily diminishing.

“I would say that this has been happening less recently,” the Israeli official said.

Responding to questions regarding reports of increased Turkish naval activity near areas where the Israeli navy operates in the Mediterranean and tensions between the two sides, the official downplayed the likelihood of a military confrontation.

“I do not think the Turks want to open fire, nor do we,” the official said.

The senior Israeli official also addressed his country’s increasingly strained relations with Europe. The official maintained that Tel Aviv has spent the past year and a half fighting against attempts to undermine the Association Agreement, which provides a framework for comprehensive economic and trade relations between Israel and the EU.

The official noted that efforts to move against the agreement, including at the recent meeting of EU ministers, failed due to Israel’s intensive diplomatic activity and the support of friendly European governments.

The official said:

“All attempts failed as a result of intensive efforts and a bloc of friendly countries with close personal ties to foreign ministers and heads of state who opposed the measures other countries sought to advance.”

The official pointed to the recent attempt to draft a joint EU statement criticising Israel’s E1 settlement construction plan in the West Bank.

The official stated that two countries blocked the statement, forcing EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas to issue a statement in her own name rather than on behalf of all member states.

According to media reports, these two countries were Czechia and Slovenia.

“There are double-digit numbers of countries in the European Union standing by Israel during a difficult period,” the Israeli said.

The official also rejected criticism that construction in the E1 corridor between Jerusalem and the Maale Adumim settlement in the West Bank is aimed at preventing a future Palestinian state.

The official described this claim as “ridiculous”, even though Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a leading proponent of the project, has explicitly stated that preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state is one of the project’s goals.

The E1 project has faced international opposition for years on the grounds that construction activities there could disrupt territorial contiguity between Palestinian areas in the north and south of the West Bank and impede the prospect of establishing a viable Palestinian state.

“I say to European foreign ministers that the argument regarding a Palestinian state is ridiculous,” the official said, arguing that the Palestinian state recognised by certain European nations would geographically already be divided between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, adding:

“What is expected? Are we supposed to accept this imposition and say that we no longer have the right to settle the Land of Israel? Since 1967, every government without exception, including left-wing governments, has built settlements in Judea and Samaria.”

Judea and Samaria is the biblical term Israel uses for the West Bank.

The official described linking Jerusalem to Maale Adumim as an “Israeli consensus” and noted that the E1 project dates back to the government of former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin.

However, the proposal was first introduced before Rabin returned to office in 1990. Although the Rabin government initially supported construction work in the area, the plan was subsequently frozen as the Israeli-Palestinian peace process progressed.