Middle East
Pentagon’s top general warns Trump of munitions shortages ahead of potential Iran strike
As the Trump administration weighs military options against Tehran, the nation’s highest-ranking military officer has privately warned President Donald Trump and senior officials that critical munitions shortages and a lack of allied support could jeopardize US personnel and the success of any operation.
General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, delivered the sobering assessment during a high-level meeting at the White House last week, according to sources familiar with the discussions. Caine emphasized that the sustained defense of Israel and ongoing military aid to Ukraine have significantly depleted US missile inventories, creating a strategic vacuum that would complicate a large-scale offensive against Iran.
During series of Pentagon briefings this month, Caine reportedly voiced deep anxieties regarding the complexity and sheer scale of a potential campaign. He pointed to the high probability of US casualties and noted that the absence of a broad international coalition would leave Washington to shoulder the operational burden alone.
In a statement, the Chairman’s office noted that, in his capacity as the president’s principal military advisor, Caine “provides a range of military options along with their secondary assessments, implications, and risks to civilian leaders.” The office added that these evaluations are provided in a classified setting. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly stated that Trump “listens to a wide spectrum of views on every issue” and makes decisions based on what is best for US national security, describing Caine as a “talented and highly valued member” of the team.
Following reports of the briefing, Trump took to social media to dismiss assertions that Caine is “opposed to war with Iran.” The president claimed that while the general would prefer to avoid conflict, he believes any such engagement would be a “fight that could be easily won.” However, sources speaking on the condition of anonymity provided a starkly different account of Caine’s warnings, suggesting a level of institutional caution that contrasts with the president’s public optimism.
The Tuesday meeting at the White House included Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and White House advisor Stephen Miller. Caine’s counsel carries significant weight within the administration, bolstered by his successful oversight of two major recent operations: the summer strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and the January extraction of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.
The scope of a military campaign would depend entirely on Trump’s strategic endgame. Neutralizing Iran’s missile program alone would require strikes on hundreds of targets across a geography three times larger than Iraq. According to a former defense official, this list includes mobile launchers, supply depots, air defense batteries, and the logistics networks used to transport hardware.
If the objective shifts toward regime change—the ousting of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—the target list would expand into the thousands, encompassing command-and-control centers, security apparatus headquarters, and key government buildings. Such a campaign could last months, require vast quantities of precision-guided munitions, and expose US forces to intensive retaliatory strikes.
While the US has deployed a massive strike force to the region, Trump has acknowledged considering a limited “surgical” strike designed to force Tehran into a nuclear deal on favorable terms. Although Iran has signaled a marginal openness to talks, fundamental disagreements persist over its uranium enrichment capacity. Negotiators from both sides are scheduled to reconvene in Geneva this week.
Some officials remain staunchly opposed to a limited strike, fearing it could trigger an uncontrollable cycle of violence against US diplomatic and military personnel. Proponents of the “limited” approach point to Iran’s historically measured responses to previous US and Israeli actions. Conversely, critics argue that Trump’s open discussion of regime change, coupled with the rising influence of hardliners within the Iranian military, makes a disproportionate and violent response far more likely. Regional allies who met with Trump last week also expressed concern that any attack would permanently scuttle the diplomatic track.
A military move against Iran would further strain ties with regional partners. A senior Gulf official indicated that several Arab nations have informed Washington they will not permit their bases to be used for strikes against Iran. Threats from Tehran to retaliate against any country facilitating a US operation have made neighbors wary of even granting airspace transit rights.
“If Arab countries do not open their airspace, how do we execute this?” asked one former Pentagon official. “How do you hit hundreds, perhaps thousands, of targets across the country without that access?”
The US faces a critical shortage of the very interceptors needed to protect its own troops. The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and Patriot systems have been utilized at a high tempo in recent regional operations. Patriot missiles, in particular, are in high demand in Ukraine. Ryan Brobst, of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, noted that the US produces only a few hundred of these interceptors annually—well below the projected needs of a sustained conflict.
The Navy faces a similar “magazine depth” issue with its Standard Missile family. Interceptors like the SM-2, SM-3, and SM-6 have been rapidly expended in the Red Sea against Houthi rebels and in the defense of Israel. Mackenzie Eaglen of the American Enterprise Institute warned that due to complex manufacturing requirements, replacing these sophisticated missiles can take two years or longer.
Katherine Thompson, a recently departed Pentagon official, warned that the US is not currently structured to finance or sustain simultaneous high-intensity conflicts. A protracted war with Iran would require severe trade-offs in other theaters of higher priority.
While the US has executed its largest military buildup in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the situation remains a volatile stalemate. On Monday, the US ordered the departure of non-essential personnel and families from its embassy in Lebanon. As tensions peak, Trump’s Special Representative Steve Witkoff questioned why Iran has not yet succumbed to the pressure of military threats. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi replied via social media: “You wonder why we don’t surrender? Because we are Iranians.”
Middle East
US envoy says Syria interim leader Sharaa seeks Israel normalization
US Ambassador to Türkiye and Special Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack stated that Syria’s interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, wants to normalize relations with Israel.
At the same time, he called for an end to Israel’s military operations in Syria and questioned whether Washington should intervene to halt them.
Speaking at the Global Security Forum held in Doha, Qatar, Barrack said Sharaa had managed difficult circumstances well and was trying to reassure Israel that his government poses no threat.
“I think President Sharaa has done a very good job under very difficult circumstances,” Barrack said, describing the message he believes the Syrian leader is conveying to Israel: “I am not aggressive, I have no problem with Israel, I want relations with Israel to normalize.”
Barrack also urged Israel to stop its operations in Syria, while voicing uncertainty over whether the US should step in to end them:
“It’s time to stop this [Israel’s actions in Syria]. I don’t know if it’s time for the US to intervene to stop it.”
Israel intensified its military operations in Syria following the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad on 8 December 2024. Israeli forces entered the demilitarized “buffer zone” along the Golan Heights and took up positions on the Syrian side of Mount Hermon (Jabal al-Shaykh), with Israel describing the deployment as a temporary security measure.
Israeli air strikes have also targeted military facilities and weapons depots across the country.
Barrack pointed to Syria’s political transition as an example of how groups once viewed as adversaries could be incorporated into new political and security structures.
“You can take Nusra, which was once designated a foreign terrorist organization; following the transformation that took place on December 8, many people today evaluate this example as ‘here is a model,'” the US diplomat said.
The Nusra Front was a jihadist group that emerged during the Syrian civil war and, after pledging allegiance to al-Qaeda, announced its departure from the network. The organization was designated as “terrorist” by several countries and bodies, primarily the US and the UN.
The group’s leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa (Abu Mohammad al-Julani), subsequently headed Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which led the offensive that ousted Assad.
Barrack also highlighted the integration of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) into the Syrian national army as an outcome many had previously considered unlikely.
“Nobody thought you could reintegrate this Kurdish entity, the SDF, into a national army, but it happened,” the US official said.
Damascus and the Kurdish-led forces signed an agreement on 10 March 2025 to integrate the SDF’s military and civilian institutions into the Syrian state.
However, delays occurred in the implementation of the agreement due to disputes over integration terms and the future of self-administration in the region.
Barrack nevertheless expressed doubts about the effectiveness of earlier US interventions in the Middle East, citing Washington’s involvement in what he characterized as “23 regime changes” across the wider region.
“Whenever we have tried to intervene, to change a person or a regime, it seems to have been a mistake,” Barrack said, while also questioning the value of US intervention in Yemen, describing it as apparently “senseless.”
Middle East
US and Israel weigh Iran strikes after midterm vote, reports say
The US and Israeli defence ministries have drawn up plans for a fresh assault on Iran, with the envisioned offensive under consideration to launch after the US Congressional midterm elections on 3 November.
Citing sources, The New York Times reported that the blueprint anticipates a brief but intense campaign.
As military units step up their drills, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth discussed prospective strike options with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The list of targets encompasses Iran’s nuclear sites, its energy infrastructure, and its arsenals of missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.
Several officials who spoke to the newspaper argued that a new wave of attacks could deal a heavy blow to the Iranian economy, forcing the leadership in Tehran into concessions.
Conversely, other sources doubt whether a resumption of fighting would prove any more successful than the earlier campaign conducted between February and April.
That previous offensive drove energy prices higher and drained US stockpiles of interceptor missiles.
It remains unclear whether US President Donald Trump will authorise the operation.
Domestic political calculations in Israel could also influence the trajectory of the plans, given that the country faces general elections on 27 October.
While some experts speaking to the newspaper contended that Netanyahu could leverage the threat of war to form a national unity government, others pointed to the opposition’s distrust of the prime minister.
Washington fears regional spillover
The US administration also harbours concerns that the fighting could engulf the wider region. On Wednesday, the US State Department ordered non-essential government personnel and their family members to leave Saudi Arabia following attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis.
A US military build-up, comprising three aircraft carriers, fighter aircraft, and special forces units, is slated to be fully deployed to the region by early November.
The targets under review include the deep underground nuclear facility code-named “Pickaxe”. Trump suggested that the high-yield GBU-43/B bomb, known as the “mother of all bombs”, could be deployed against the site, though experts doubt whether the ordnance can destroy a complex buried so deeply.
For its part, Tehran is preparing for a potential escalation, threatening to broaden its target list. Retaliatory options under consideration by Iran reportedly include data centres and subsea internet cables, in addition to shipping and energy facilities.
Mehdi Mohammadi, an adviser to an Iranian negotiator, dismissed US hopes of wrapping up a new campaign within 72 hours as a “fantasy”. Mohammadi warned that Tehran’s response would be more severe and unpredictable.
The Financial Times previously reported that an Israeli strike on Iran set for 10 October had been called off because the US president was unwilling to risk a broader conflict ahead of the Congressional midterms.
According to that report, the Israeli military had prepared a multi-day assault on nuclear sites, Iranian government targets, power plants, and civilian infrastructure on Netanyahu’s orders. The strikes had been designed to exceed the intensity of the campaign begun in February.
Washington seeks to secure an agreement from Tehran covering both the Strait of Hormuz and its nuclear programme.
“It will either be a deal or a strike,” one source told the Financial Times, adding that an operation could get under way in the coming weeks.
Another official who spoke to the paper suggested that Israeli preparations might serve as leverage to squeeze Iran in negotiations.
Axios also reported that the Pentagon had issued orders to prepare for renewed strikes, though the directive contained no specific date and Trump has yet to take a final decision.
The US and Israel launched their offensive against Iran on 28 February. Iran hit back by targeting US and Israeli assets across the region and curbing vessel transit through the Strait of Hormuz.
Although both sides signed a memorandum of understanding in June that provided for a ceasefire and talks to lift the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, reciprocal attacks between the US and Iran have persisted.
Middle East
Netanyahu trails Eisenkot in Israeli polls despite Trump backing
As general elections scheduled for 27 October approach in Israel, the opposition camp led by former Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot continues to lead Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in public opinion polls.
Survey data published in the Israeli press on 19 and 20 October reveal that the governing coalition has failed to catch the opposition, despite explicit backing from US President Donald Trump.
However, the current distribution of votes documents that neither wing can reach a governing majority on its own.
Netanyahu reaches 61 seats in Channel 14’s latest poll. He doesn’t in i24’s.
Both give him a stronger position than Kan and Maariv. Likud gets 29 seats in Channel 14, 25 in i24, 21 in Kan and 18 in Maariv.
Count the same five lists—Likud, Shas, United Torah Judaism, Otzma… pic.twitter.com/Qb0fCq0qdK
— Zvika Klein צביקה קליין (@ZvikaKlein) October 19, 2026
Neither bloc reaches the 61 seats needed to form a government
According to a survey conducted by Channel 13, if an election were held today, Eisenkot’s bloc would win 51 seats, while the Netanyahu coalition would take 50.
A Channel 12 poll indicates that the gap has widened slightly, projecting 55 seats for Eisenkot’s alliance and 51 for the governing bloc. A minimum of 61 seats is required to form a government in the Knesset, Israel’s 120-seat parliament.
A key factor deadlocking the political arithmetic is the refusal by both sides to form a coalition with parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel. This stance stands as the most tangible obstacle to securing a parliamentary majority after the election.
Channel 12 data shows that overall voter turnout is expected to remain at 72%. The inclination to head to the ballot box climbs to 81% among opposition voters, compared with 74% measured among Netanyahu supporters.
The same poll notes that Eisenkot has widened his lead over Netanyahu by two further points in prime ministerial preferences.
Yashar party climbs after Gantz bows out
A survey published on the Walla news site shows that the balance shifted after Benny Gantz decided to withdraw his Blue and White party from the race. Following that move, Eisenkot’s Yashar party increased its projected tally to 23 seats, while Netanyahu’s Likud dropped by one seat to 19.
Eisenkot’s party and the “Zionist Opposition” bloc it anchors have remained atop the polls for several months.
In an earlier message of support, Trump praised Netanyahu as “a great fighting prime minister and an even greater partner for peace.” Public opinion polls document that this diplomatic and political backing has not proved sufficient to tip the preferences of the Israeli electorate in favour of the incumbent government.
Support for Ben Gvir rises among young voters
Although Netanyahu’s alliance trails in overall strength, far-right figures within the coalition appear to be expanding their grassroots base. Gauged interest in the Jewish Power party of Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir is climbing, particularly among younger voters.
Speaking to a study conducted by Agam Labs, affiliated with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, an 18-year-old student described his shifting preference: “I used to think he was a bit crazy, but then I actually looked at what he was saying, and it all made sense.”
Another Israeli citizen stated that Ben Gvir’s push to arm West Bank settlers gave them “room to breathe.”
Ben Gvir is known for leading settler incursions into the Al-Aqsa compound and distributing military-grade rifles to tens of thousands of settlers since 7 October 2023.
Criticized for escalating violence against Palestinians, Ben Gvir has called for starving Gaza, maintaining military operations in Lebanon, and bombing Beirut. The far-right minister’s militaristic stances also find a political constituency across several opposition parties in Israel.
-
Europe2 weeks agoBerlin Left Party backs Israel’s right to exist for coalition pact
-
America2 weeks agoTrump weighs presidential memorandum to cut surging US diesel prices
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoEU and China reach preliminary deal to curb hybrid car imports
-
Diplomacy1 week agoSWP urges backing for Gulf trade routes bypassing Strait of Hormuz
-
Europe1 week agoLSE study finds post-bailout Greece turned into a cafe economy
-
America2 weeks agoEnergy firms enlist ex-US officials to tap Venezuelan oil
-
America2 weeks agoThiel targets Pope and Obama over AI in new ‘Antichrist’ lectures
-
Europe2 weeks agoRaphaël Glucksmann wins French centre-left presidential primary
