Iran

Hours after results confirmed that the Republican Party had lost control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the United States Congress in the midterm elections this week, senior Republicans were hand-wringing over what had gone so badly wrong and whether a major course correction would now be required.

As once-Republican strongholds like Texas fell to the enemy, US Vice President JD Vance took to X to declare that the “real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone”.

“The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night. If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that’s at least honest,” Vance said.

Former Trump voters had switched sides, he said, over the Iran war and the US ties to Israel.

The elephant in the room was no more.

“I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, ‘I told you so’: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview,” he wrote.

A poisoned chalice

Just days after the US and Israel launched strikes across Iran on February 28, Tehran effectively closed the critical Strait of Hormuz, which once transited roughly 25 percent of the world’s seaborne oil trade, triggering a massive spike in oil prices and a major global energy crisis. The price of Brent crude – the global benchmark – hit $120 in March and April and has hovered around $115 in recent weeks.

On Thursday morning, oil prices dropped to $93.82 a barrel on expectations that Republican Party losses would reduce the likelihood of US President Donald Trump renewing strikes on Iran following weeks of speculation.

But as consumers in the US struggle with sky-high petrol and diesel prices – not to mention the soaring cost of food, which has also been impacted by Trump’s trade tariffs – the midterms have forced a leadership rethink as the Trump brand appears increasingly toxic.

While no Republicans have declared their intention to run for the 2028 presidential election, some in the party are believed to be eyeing it now.

Andrew Payne, from the Chatham House think tank, told Al Jazeera that any Republican wanting to take on the 2028 election will now need to “distance themselves from the more unpopular aspects of Trump’s record”. That means the Iran war, the greatest poisoned chalice of them all.

“That, I think, is why Vance came out so clearly in blaming the war. It is evident to those who have been watching closely that he has always been the voice of scepticism behind the scenes, and he now needs to make that difference of opinion clear to the average voter. But doing so will be really hard while Trump is still in office and, presumably, wants to play an active role as kingmaker,” Payne said.

Unpopular, but not as unpopular as Trump

The most obvious pick and frontrunner for the Republican 2028 nomination is currently Vance, who is known to have ambitions to take over from Trump.

Regarded as an anti-US interventionist, Vance, while publicly supporting Trump’s Iran war, has also been privately urging him and others to end the conflict, according to the US news outlet Axios.

Last week, Vance sent a letter to the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Mohsen Rezaei, proposing a meeting between US and Iranian officials soon in a bid to prevent further escalation. By contrast, this week Trump said the war would only come to an end “when I want it to”.

This move, coupled with his post on X on Wednesday night, is increasingly being seen as Vance putting as much distance as he can between himself and the war.

Throwing off the Trump touch may be trickier than he thinks, however, according to one Vance ally close to the White House who spoke to Politico on Wednesday. While it is “possible for him [Vance] to modestly differentiate himself” from Trump, the source said, there is no way to completely delink himself.

“He’s still Trump’s vice president. This is still a Trump administration war. They’re still both unpopular. He’s not as unpopular as Trump but he’s unpopular,” the anonymous source said.

According to Tuesday polling from The New York Times on who is ahead in a theoretical Republican presidential primary, Vance is at 40 percent. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio follows at 21 percent, alongside Donald Trump Jr, also at 21 percent.

Rubio has yet to comment on the Republican wipeout. Still, like Vance, he is allied with Trump’s administration, which may make a presidential bid challenging.

Any potential candidate now faces a choice between two routes, Payne said. One is to “re-energise the [Make America Great Again or MAGA] movement, which I expect will be difficult, because Trump did it through sheer force of personality that is hard to replicate”.

“The second route is to keep as much of the base on board as possible while appealing to the traditional conservative groups who have drifted from the party over the past decade, thereby expanding the coalition. If he runs, I would think Marco Rubio has a better shot at doing that,” Payne said.

‘Blue tsunami’

There are other potential candidates to consider.

A former frontrunner for the 2016 presidential election, which saw Trump secure his first administration, Ted Cruz is now Texas’s only statewide Republican lawmaker.

In a post on X after the results, Cruz wrote: “2026 was not simply a blue wave; it was a blue tsunami. It was an a** kicking”.

“Food is too high, gas is too high, diesel is too high, insurance is too high, life is too high. Tariffs have made everything too expensive, and the Iran war has dragged on too long. It should have been brief, decisive, and over,” Cruz wrote.

“Understandably, people were pissed off, and elected Republicans didn’t do enough to address their very real pain. So, what do we do now? We need to listen and respond. We need to champion economic policies that make a real difference in working people’s lives, and we need to deal with the consequences.”

In September, the Wall Street Journal reported that Cruz was testing the waters for the 2028 nomination. But as one of the early cheerleaders for the Iran war, Cruz will struggle to disassociate himself from it, other than to criticise the manner of its execution.

As the blame game continues, the Republican Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, described the results of the midterms as “close to an extinction-level event” for the party.

“If the Republican Party doesn’t have Texas as an anchor, then we are not going to be viable nationally going forward,” he said.

“We’re in a very volatile political era, things shift quickly, and the leaders just got to recognise that.”

DeSantis’s time as governor ends in January after two terms, but speculation has grown about whether he also wants to throw his hat into the ring for the US presidential nomination as the playing field remains wide open.

Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is exercising power without appearing in public or allowing his voice to be heard. Since succeeding his father in March, he has governed through written statements and decrees, while reports of his meetings with senior officials offer a glimpse into how he exercises power.

The meetings announced in May and August appeared intended primarily to reassure Iranians that their new leader was alive and exercising authority. But a series of four meetings announced within 11 days in October, involving the heads of Iran’s parliament, judiciary and national security establishment, as well as senior military commanders, suggests something more: a new system of decision-making taking shape.

The meetings come as Tehran weighs its options between negotiations and renewed confrontation with the United States and Israel. They also invite comparisons with the consultations that preceded the 2015 nuclear agreement. The question is whether Iran’s new leadership is preparing for a similarly consequential decision, and whether this system is capable of making one.

The new Khameneism

For nearly 37 years, Ali Khamenei’s rule rested on his direct personal presence: speeches setting red lines, public meetings with commanders, political elites and ordinary Iranians. His son came to power in different circumstances. Injured in the February 28 strike that killed his father, he was advised, according to sources close to him quoted by Reuters, not to appear or release audio recordings for fear of being tracked.

His rule has taken shape through decrees rebuilding institutions, decisions channelled through a narrow circle of trusted officials, and the testimony of others in place of personal appearances.

The October meetings followed appointments to replace military and security commanders killed in the war. In August, Khamenei appointed his military adviser, Mohsen Rezaei, as his representative on the Supreme National Security Council; Rezaei later became its secretary. Six military appointments followed, including Ali Abdollahi as chief of the Armed Forces General Staff, Ahmad Vahidi as commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ali Azmaei as IRGC Navy commander. Abdollahi was also instructed to complete the merger of the General Staff with Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters.

The sequence of Khamenei’s reported meetings is revealing. Those announced in May with President Masoud Pezeshkian and Abdollahi, then head of Khatam al-Anbiya, and another with Pezeshkian announced in August, served chiefly to reassure Iranians that the new leader was alive and exercising his duties. October’s meetings appear to have constituted a systematic round of consultations reaching from constitutional institutions to the armed forces.

At his first reported meeting with the military leadership he had reconstituted, announced on October 31, Abdollahi, army commander Amir Hatami and Vahidi reportedly briefed Khamenei on military readiness in the Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman.

Iran thus appears to be moving from reconstruction to operation: activating a decision-making system rather than merely establishing the leader’s presence.

These consultations unfolded alongside intensive mediation, with each stage of internal consultation following an external diplomatic development.

On October 20, Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, carried a Qatari-Pakistani compromise proposal to Tehran. According to Arab media reports, it envisaged unannounced inspections of nuclear facilities in exchange for Iran receiving the interest on its frozen funds in Qatar. Khamenei’s meeting with Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s chief negotiator, was announced the following day.

On October 26, Munir returned with Saudi Defence Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman Al Saud and Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin. Their discussions produced an understanding that regional security was the responsibility of the region’s own states. Rezaei also announced that Tehran had sent Washington a proposal concerning the Strait of Hormuz with a seven-day deadline. Khamenei’s meeting with Rezaei, who had received a letter from US Vice President JD Vance, was announced the next day.

On October 30, Qatari mediators held 12 hours of talks in Tehran, coordinated with the White House, after US envoy Tom Barrack suggested an initial understanding was close. Khamenei’s meeting with military commanders was announced the following day.

This timing suggests that internal consultation has become the other side of external mediation.

The statements from these meetings carry two parallel, not contradictory, messages. In the meeting with Rezaei, Khamenei insisted on Iran’s conditions for ending the war, escaping the debilitating state of “neither war nor peace” and managing the Strait of Hormuz. In his instructions to the commanders, he demanded immediate retaliation against any threat without geographical limits, an expanded list of US and Israeli targets, and emphasised that Iran would decide when any renewed confrontation ended.

Repeated appeals for unity suggest an awareness of competing views within the political elite over war and negotiations.

Yet the meetings appear to have defined the upper and lower limits of Iran’s choices, rather than settled on a particular course: at one end, rejecting an intolerable continuation of “neither war nor peace”; at the other, preparing to widen the war if attacks resume. Between these limits lie a settlement on Iranian terms, pursued through Ghalibaf, Rezaei and the mediators, or continued mutual pressure while strengthening the domestic front.

The gap remains wide. Washington wants nuclear concessions before negotiations resume; Tehran first wants the naval blockade lifted, frozen assets released and oil exports restored.

Significantly, Khamenei spoke of conditions “set by the country’s officials”, not by himself. The wording distributes responsibility among institutions and preserves room for him to embrace or disown an eventual outcome.

The comparison with 2015

There are echoes here of the lengthy consultations before the nuclear agreement of July 14, 2015.

A secret channel in Muscat opened with Ali Khamenei’s approval. On September 17, 2013, he spoke to IRGC commanders of “heroic flexibility”, reassuring the military before negotiations. In June 2015, he set out his red lines, and in October he issued a letter of conditional approval. Responsibility for the nuclear file passed from the Supreme National Security Council to the Foreign Ministry under Mohammad Javad Zarif, a sign that the political decision had been made.

The resemblance is clear: a supreme leader establishes red lines, delegates negotiations to trusted figures and brings the military into the process before a major shift.

The differences are deeper. The earlier process lasted around two years under sanctions, not war. Today’s consultations were compressed into 11 days amid armed confrontation, a naval blockade and the approaching November 3 US midterm elections.

Ali Khamenei spoke in his own voice; his son speaks through written statements. Diplomats led the earlier negotiations; now two figures with IRGC backgrounds, Ghalibaf and Rezaei, play central roles. Where the earlier backchannel ran through Oman, today mediation involves Qatar and the countries of the Mecca Agreement, signed on August 7.

Above all, “heroic flexibility” was presented to commanders as preparation for an agreement. Today, conditions for a settlement sit alongside an expanded list of military targets.

The deficit of trust has also deepened. If the legacy of 1979 shaped Washington’s view of Tehran, and the US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement in 2018 shaped Tehran’s view of Washington, the wars of June 2025 and February 2026 have added a layer of mistrust that no technical agreement can easily overcome.

The consultations thus resemble those of 2013 in form but not function. Then, they prepared the ground for negotiations; now, they prepare for a choice between negotiation and escalation.

The seven reported meetings suggest that the new Khameneism may be more than an attempt to fill a leadership vacuum. Its decision-making machinery appears to be in place and functioning, even though the supreme leader’s presence can be established only through others.

Yet every announcement intended to dispel doubts produces more of them, without photographs or details of exactly when and where the meetings took place. The legitimacy of decisions remains partly dependent on the legitimacy of the leader’s presence.

Can this system, with its new commanders and parallel messages of compromise and deterrence, make a decision as consequential as the one taken in 2015, when war has raised the political cost of flexibility beyond what a leader who has yet to appear publicly may be able to bear?

The father saw and was seen; the son makes his presence felt through endorsements and influence from behind protective barriers.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Seoul proposes expanding its Cheonghae unit’s operational areas to waters near Duqm in Oman amid pressure from US to support war on Iran.

South Korea plans to expand its anti-piracy patrols off the coast of Somalia to waters closer to the Strait of Hormuz, the Ministry of National Defense said, following pressure from the United States to provide support for the war on Iran.

The government will ask the National Assembly to extend the mandate of the Cheonghae unit, a naval task force due to expire at the end of 2026, a Defence Ministry spokesperson told the Reuters news agency on Thursday. The request would also widen the unit’s area of operations to waters near the port of Duqm in Oman, about 650km (403 miles) from the Strait of Hormuz.

The motion will go to lawmakers after the cabinet endorses it next week, the Yonhap news agency reported.

The Cheonghae unit has patrolled the Gulf of Aden since 2009 to protect commercial shipping. Its latest contingent sailed from South Korea’s Busan on October 2 on board the Chungmugong Yi Sun-sin, a 4,400-tonne destroyer carrying a maritime helicopter and about 300 service members.

Under the new mandate, the unit would push northeast into the Arabian Sea south of Oman, roughly doubling its operating radius to about 1,930km (1,200 miles), officials told Yonhap.

It would add 75 personnel, including a bomb disposal team, and a P-8A maritime patrol aircraft to help monitor shipping routes.

Officials told Yonhap the mission would be strictly noncombat and the unit would remain under South Korean command, operating independently of allied forces.

“The enhancement of the Cheonghae unit’s mission is to protect our citizens and safeguard our economic interests,” a defence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Yonhap.

“Operations will remain restricted to the open waters south of Oman, and the maritime patrol aircraft will be prohibited from targeting or monitoring Iranian territory, territorial waters or the interior of the Strait of Hormuz during their missions,” he said.

The latest proposal follows pressure from US President Donald Trump for Seoul to support Washington’s war on Iran.

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung pledged in April to help safeguard shipping during talks led by the United Kingdom and France. In September, he said he would avoid any deployment that could draw South Korea into the war.

Opposition lawmakers have argued against an expansion of the Cheonghae unit’s mission.

“Expanding the Cheonghae unit’s operational area amounts to a troop deployment,” Kim Joon-hyung, the floor leader of the small left-leaning Rebuilding Korea Party, said at a news conference at the National Assembly in Seoul on Wednesday.

“It is not a clever solution but a deceptive workaround.”

Kim warned that an expanded mission could expose South Korean forces to Iranian retaliation, even if Seoul insisted that its personnel would not take part in combat.

“If President Donald Trump boasts that South Korea was the first country in the world to dispatch troops, we would become the first country to join the Middle East war,” he said.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has expressed hope that Democratic gains in the United States midterm ⁠elections will bring ⁠more help for Kyiv, as European officials urged the new US Congress to ramp up pressure on Russia to end Europe’s bloodiest conflict since World War II.

Zelenskyy’s comments on Wednesday came after American voters rebuked US President Donald Trump and his Republican Party, handing control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives to the Democratic Party.

In an interview with German broadcaster ZDF, Zelenskyy said the Democratic gains could work to Ukraine’s advantage.

“I am also grateful to the Republicans, but the Democrats speak very clearly about supporting Ukraine and providing assistance to Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said.  “They speak about renewing the connection between the United States and Europe… Therefore, there is hope that a balance of power will emerge, and that we will receive more support.”

Zelenskyy said more US aid could have an effect ‌on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“If Congress now speaks of strong financial support or military assistance, as Europe is doing and demonstrating today, then that will be something positive that will have an impact on Putin,” he told ZDF.

Zelenskyy has worked to repair a rocky relationship with Trump since an Oval Office meeting in February 2025 at which the US president accused his Ukrainian counterpart of being “ungrateful” for Washington’s aid.

Pressure on Russia

In recent weeks, Trump has made several moves favourable to Russia, including a deal to import Russian diesel.

Last month, he waived sanctions on Russia that Congress had overwhelmingly approved as part of legislation supporting Ukraine.

Ukraine has also accused Washington of delaying deliveries of interceptor missiles.

Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, said she hoped the new Congress would “continue supporting Ukraine and also putting more pressure on Russia”.

“Europe as well as US, we are much stronger together,” Kallas said, expressing hope that joint pressure would force Moscow to end the war.

In Germany, leaders were divided. Chancellor Friedrich Merz expressed scepticism on Wednesday that Trump would change course despite the Democrats’ sweeping victory.

“Quite frankly, over the last two years, Trump has largely governed by bypassing Congress. Why should that be any different now?” Merz said at an event in Berlin, a day after US voters handed Republicans a historic defeat.

His foreign minister, Johann Wadephul, was more hopeful. He said the “very clear” Democratic victory could create “a new opportunity to launch a fresh initiative” to end the wars in Ukraine and Iran. He added that he was “quite optimistic” that aid to Ukraine, which has been slashed under Trump, would get “more discussion” from US lawmakers of both parties.

Scepticism

Others in Europe cautioned that with Trump in office for two more years, Washington’s foreign policy was unlikely to change quickly.

The US president has berated European leaders, roiled their economies with tariffs, threatened to pull the US out of NATO, and said he wants to take over Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of Denmark.

“Our security and prosperity in Austria and Europe must not depend on how people in Kansas or Iowa vote,” Austria’s foreign minister, Beate Meinl-Reisinger, said. “That’s why we are strengthening our own defence capability and our own competitiveness.”

In Moscow, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia hoped Trump “will continue his peacemaking efforts”, regardless of the election result.

Democratic aides have told US media that helping Kyiv would be a priority when the party takes control of the congressional agenda in January. But diplomacy is moving faster.

Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy, said Washington would bring Ukrainian and Russian delegations together in Abu Dhabi on November 10 and 11 to discuss ending the war and security arrangements for Ukraine.

Zelenskyy said on Wednesday that he has had detailed conversations with Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, ahead of the meeting.

“The negotiations must move forward at full throttle to bring this war to an end as quickly as possible. Ukraine is ready to take the necessary steps,” he wrote on X.

Democrats rode a blue wave to victory in the United States midterm elections, winning control of both chambers of Congress. Now comes the question of whether they can deliver on their promises.

The party campaigned on bringing down the cost of living, ending the war on Iran and holding President Donald Trump accountable, as well as pushing back against his immigration crackdown.

But Democrats won’t take control of Congress until January. Even then, there’s only so much they’ll be able to do without Republican cooperation.

Most bills need 60 votes to get past a filibuster in the Senate, and even if Democrats manage that, Trump can still veto their legislation. He has already threatened to do just that, telling a podcast on Monday, “I’ll veto everything.”

But the Democrats now also have other tools at their disposal, including power over Senate confirmations and control over committees that can launch investigations.

So what can Democrats realistically accomplish over the next two years, and where might they struggle to make good on their promises?

Can Democrats bring down the cost of living?

Affordability was one of the biggest issues for voters heading into Tuesday’s midterm elections, and Democrats seized on that, promising to bring down the costs of energy, housing, healthcare and groceries.

Dean Baker, an economist and cofounder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a US-based think tank, said one of the most effective things Democrats can do to bring down costs is push for an end to the war on Iran.

Since February, the conflict has driven up energy prices, as Iran has restricted commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for the oil and gas trade.

Baker argued that Democrats could use congressional investigations and oversight to pressure the Trump administration to end the war, potentially helping to give consumers relief.

Foreign policy is an area where some Republicans could find common cause with Democrats, said Baker.

Another area, he added, might be healthcare, an issue that similarly hits voters in the pocketbook.

The expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies in 2025 has left many Americans facing higher insurance premiums.

With their new congressional majorities, Democrats could push to restore those subsidies and reverse cuts to Medicaid, the government healthcare programme for low-income Americans.

A possible path to accomplishing that goal would be to include those measures in government spending bills that Congress needs to pass, according to Baker. That would also make them harder for Trump to reject.

“Republicans living in a post-Trump world, I don’t think they want to be on the side of preventing people from getting healthcare or basically paying more for healthcare,” Baker said. “They can make the politics such that he doesn’t want to veto it.”

Trump’s tariff campaign is another factor driving up consumer costs. But Baker warned that they could be tougher to reverse, without substantial support from Republicans to override a Trump veto. Even if they do manage that, prices could take a while to actually drop.

“Prices are like rockets and feathers. They shoot up like rockets; they come down like feathers,” said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive economic think tank.

Jacquez, however, pointed to another path Democrats could take that wouldn’t need Trump’s approval.

With majorities in Congress, Democrats could wield congressional committees to investigate companies that have been raising the prices of everything from groceries to electricity bills.

“There’s a lot of precedent for getting some real material outcomes just through having the gavels and being able to subpoena CEOs and haul people in front of Congress,” Jacquez told Al Jazeera.

While there’s no guarantee these investigations would bring down prices, they could put pressure on companies to explain or adjust their decisions.

Could a Democratic Congress hold Trump accountable?

Laura Blessing, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute, expects Democrats to make extensive use of their new investigative powers.

“In terms of time spent and newspaper ink spilled, this is where you’re going to see the most action from Dems, by a mile,” she told Al Jazeera in an email.

Congressional investigations do not require White House approval. But they could make life harder for Trump by scrutinising his actions both within and outside of government.

Many Democrats have signalled they plan to investigate the source of the Trump family’s wealth as part of January’s incoming Congress.

Trump’s personal wealth has soared by about $2.2bn since the start of his term, according to financial disclosure forms released earlier this year.

His family’s business empire has likewise expanded over the last two years into everything from cryptocurrency and drones to artificial intelligence and prediction markets — industries his government has favoured in its policies.

Democratic senators have already been laying the groundwork for potential investigations, sending letters to companies and government departments demanding that they preserve records.

Among the issues they could examine are whether donors to Trump’s White House ballroom received favourable treatment from the government, and whether the Justice Department targeted his political opponents.

There is no guarantee, however, that everyone will cooperate.

Trump administration officials could challenge subpoenas in court, delaying investigations. But while Blessing doesn’t expect “Trump’s nuclear family to show up to a subpoena”, she said Democrats could still question government employees and others connected to Trump’s inner circle.

Even if they uncover wrongdoing, however, there is no guarantee of legal consequences, since it’s Trump’s own Justice Department that would have to decide whether to take up the cases.

Impeachment is another possibility. Lawmakers have already introduced articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for multiple reasons, including allegations that he waged war against Iran without seeking congressional approval first.

Republican Representative Thomas Massie has said he will try to force a House vote on Hegseth’s impeachment when the outgoing Congress returns to session next week.

Trump, who was impeached twice during his first term, however, dismissed the prospect of facing a third impeachment himself, telling reporters on Wednesday that he was “not even a little bit” worried.

“I think it would destroy the Democratic Party if they did that, because it would be impeachment for no reason,” he said.

Trump also defended Hegseth, saying he was doing “a very good job”.

Even if the House of Representatives votes to impeach a government official, the case must still be weighed in a Senate trial.

Removing an elected official would require a two-thirds vote in the Senate, meaning many Republicans would need to get on board to oust a figure like Trump or Hegseth. No president in US history has ever been removed from office as a result of an impeachment proceeding.

Could Democrats end the war on Iran?

With less than two months until the 120th Congress is sworn in, experts anticipate Trump will use his final weeks with the outgoing Republican majorities to push through any remaining legislative priorities.

It also leaves Trump a critical window in which to escalate the war on Iran, according to Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a foreign policy think tank.

“He has shown a pattern in which, in the face of humiliation and defeat, he becomes more reckless,” Parsi told Al Jazeera.

Democrats could pursue a binding resolution to wind down the war. After all, the US Constitution assigns Congress the sole authority to declare war, and laws like the War Powers Act of 1973 give lawmakers a path to ending unauthorised conflicts past the 60-day mark.

But there is no guarantee that those efforts would work, given the possibility of Trump vetoing their proposed measures.

Experts, however, say there is another way that Democrats could rein in Trump’s war powers. One of their most powerful tools will be control over government spending.

The Trump administration can continue using money already allocated for military operations, but Democrats could try to block additional funding for the war.

“It creates a limitation for how long he can pursue the war,” Parsi said. “If he needs more funding for it, we’re not talking about small sums that he can just reallocate from other places easily.”

With control of congressional committees, Democrats could also investigate the administration’s conduct during the war, including whether its military operations complied with US law.

“Rigorous oversight would not restrict military operations by itself but could raise the political costs of the war beyond what the president or other key officials are willing to endure,” said David Janovsky, a policy analyst at the Project on Government Oversight.

How much political will Democrats have to end the conflict, however, is an open question.

Blessing, the government affairs fellow, noted that the party has historically been reluctant to withhold military funding out of fear of being accused of undermining US troops.

But Parsi warned that failing to act would be politically unsustainable — and could be seen by the party’s base as a tacit endorsement of US military involvement in the Middle East.

“It will no longer be just Trump’s war,” Parsi said. “They will also co-own it, because they will be complicit, because they have the ability to stop it.”

Could Democrats rein in Trump’s immigration crackdown?

Another target for the incoming Democrat-led Congress could be Trump’s hardline immigration crackdown.

His pledge to oversee the largest mass deportation in US history has sparked widespread public backlash. A public opinion poll earlier this year found that 65 percent of Americans believe Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has “gone too far” in its efforts.

With control of both chambers of Congress, Democrats could launch investigations into ICE and other agencies involved in the crackdown.

Their probes could seek information about conditions inside detention centres, allegations of abuse and how taxpayer dollars are being used for immigration enforcement, said Heidi Altman, the vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center.

Altman argues Congress could also claw back the roughly $240bn already given to the Trump administration for immigration enforcement over the past two years.

That amount of money, she explained, has allowed ICE to operate with few constraints, without having to prioritise which communities to go into or who to detain.

“The only way to force a slowdown and actual sort of decision-making and prioritisation and enforcement is to dramatically curtail their budget by taking back the funding from the last session,” she said.

Doing so would require passing legislation that Trump could eventually veto. But Altman argued that Democrats should push ahead anyway.

“The worst possible thing we could do is throw up our hands and say we have limited power,” she said.

“Pass the bills, see what happens, put them on the president’s desk, and dare him to look at the American people and say he’s not signing something that they overwhelmingly demanded.”

Vance cited trusted pollster saying Iran war, Israel ties were top of mind for Trump voters swinging to Democrats.

Vice President JD Vance has blamed the war on Iran for his party’s withering midterms defeat, suggesting that the conflict may not have been worth ceding control of the US Congress to Democrats.

“The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night,” he wrote in a lengthy post on X. “If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so.”

“Everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.”

Vance, a likely 2028 presidential candidate and heir apparent to Trump’s Make America Great Again movement, has been a key negotiator with Iran as the two countries search for a way out of the conflict, which has dented their economies and pushed global fuel prices up.

His statements on Tehran have been more dovish than those of other key members of the administration, and his post-election note appears to mark the closest he has yet come to publicly diverging from his boss on an issue that looks set to dog Republicans as the war continues.

Citing a pollster he describes as “one of the smartest people I know”, Vance said he was told ending the Iran war and “changing our relationship with Israel” were two of the top four answers given by Americans surveyed who had voted for Trump in 2024 but were planning to vote for Democrats in the 2026 midterms.

In stark contrast, Trump said, in the wake of the rebuke at the ballot box, that he had no regrets about launching the conflict.

“I did the right thing. I would have done it again,” he told the Wall Street Journal.

PHNOM PENH, Cambodia — A U.S. cruise ship that forced all its passengers to disembark in Cambodia after suspending its operations last week has departed the Southeast Asian nation with only crew aboard, Cambodian officials said Wednesday.

The MV Odyssey, owned by Florida-based Villa Vie Residences, had been on an around-the-world cruise when it suspended its planned three-year voyage due to the sharp rise in fuel costs.

It had been docked for a scheduled stop at the Cambodian port of Sihanoukville on the Gulf of Thailand, when on Oct. 28 its 203 passengers were suddenly told they had to disembark within a few hours.

The ship left Sihanoukville late Tuesday with only crew and other personnel on board, said Tang Sochetkresna, director of the Tourism Department of Preah Sihanouk province. He said he didn’t know the ship’s next destination.

He said that nearly 100 passengers remained in Sihanoukville, while others were visiting other parts of Cambodia or had traveled on to other countries. Most of the ship’s passengers were Americans.

The ship, with its 650-passenger capacity, had 156 crew members on board, but it was not clear how many departed with the ship.

There has been no official announcement of future plans for the cruise ship. Media reports suggested that a creditor had taken over its management and was having it sailed to Singapore, Southeast Asia’s main maritime hub.

The abrupt end to the ship’s voyage has drawn widespread attention because it had touted itself as a floating home, combining long-term living at sea with global travel.

Several passengers said they had paid more than $300,000 for a suite for the lifetime of the vessel.

Villa Vie Residences said monthly fuel expenses per cabin that historically averaged $1,800 have reached an estimated $6,000 to $8,000 in parts of Asia due to the war in Iran.

The company said it sought to reduce fuel consumption by slowing the itinerary and spending more time in port, but was unable to offset the surging costs.

Traffic has been curtailed in the Strait of Hormuz since the war in Iran began, squeezing supplies of all kinds of petroleum-based fuels, especially in Southeast Asia, and sharply increasing prices.

Passengers had said the company had been asking them for several months for contributions to keep the ship operating, and there has been an active debate on social media over whether its operation was ever financially viable.

Built in 1993 and operated under different names by several cruise lines over the years before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Odyssey was bought by Villa Vie Residences in 2023.

Its current cruise began in October 2024 in Belfast, Northern Ireland, where the ship had been refitted. A second cruise, along with the purchase of a second ship to operate in a similar capacity, had already been planned.

Cheang writes for the Associated Press.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has said that anyone expecting a shift in the United States’ policy towards his country is “seriously mistaken”, hours after midterm elections dealt a blow to President Donald Trump.

His comments came as other Iranian officials struck a more optimistic tone on Wednesday, following the results of the US vote, which saw Democrats score a major victory by taking control of both chambers of Congress.

“Those who still harbour even the slightest hope that the behaviour of the hegemonic system might change through partisan or factional shifts, or who imagine that making concessions to the United States can dissuade it from hostility towards the Iranian nation, are seriously mistaken,” Khamenei said in a written statement published on his website.

He said that Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz had shattered the “myth of America’s invincibility”, and warned that any renewed US attack would draw a far wider response.

Trump himself has acknowledged the US-Israel war on Iran that began in February likely impacted his Republican Party’s poor performance in the elections, saying voters were probably not ready “for the short-term consequence of paying more for gasoline”.

Khamenei said Iran’s confrontation with the US had reached a point where “every day and every hour” had become a time of resistance against “the Great Satan”. His message was to mark the National Day of the Fight Against Global Arrogance, which falls each year on November 4, the anniversary of the 1979 seizure of the US embassy in Tehran.

The supreme leader described Iran’s management of the strait and what he called the elimination of US military bases in regional countries as a reaction to US “aggression and crimes” during the war.

“In the event of repeated transgressions, it will take on much wider dimensions,” he said.

‘Americans said NO TO WAR’

The supreme leader struck a “cautious” note on Wednesday, warning that a party shift in the US would not persuade Washington to abandon its hostility against Iran, noted Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar Atas, reporting from Tehran.

This contrasted with a more celebratory mood among other Iranian officials reacting to the Republican defeat, Atas said.

“Conscience or the cost of living, Americans said NO TO WAR, and we endorse this message,” said Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s chief negotiator with Washington and his country’s parliament speaker.

“If the US [government] betrays their public will to serve international paymasters and blackmailers, it will learn our NO comes with a Nightmare,” he added on X.

Mohammad Mokhber, an adviser and assistant to the supreme leader, said Trump had been “slapped in the face by his own people”.

“The true winner in this arena was Iran, which transferred the cost of the war into the United States,” he wrote on X.

Judiciary chief Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei wrote on Telegram: “Trump was defeated both in war and in politics; we will certainly impose further defeats on him; this is still only the early outcome.” He added that November 4 “has always been a day of defeat for the Americans” and honoured “the dear martyred students of Minab”.

Mehdi Tabatabaei, deputy head for communications at the president’s office, said Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, “blind adherence” to Israel’s interests and the “futile war” with Iran had handed the Republicans their biggest defeat.

Atas said Iranians believe a Democratic-controlled Congress could restrain Trump and make him “less reckless” over the war, with some Republicans wary ahead of the 2028 elections. But some in Tehran fear that because officials have framed the result as a defeat imposed by Iran, Trump could “personalise the matter” and launch a new round of war “in an act of revenge”.

The US has warned it could carry out a short but intensive military campaign against Iran after the midterms.

Hamidreza Moghadamfar, an adviser to the commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), said Iran would hit targets beyond US bases if Gulf states allowed Washington to launch attacks from their territory. Speaking at a rally in Bandar Abbas, he named the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain and said Iran would respond with a “new doctrine and new technology”.

Iran says a ‘maximum deterrence’ plan is ready against any new US attack, warning of an immediate response.

The chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces has laid out five conditions for what he calls a roadmap to lasting security, as Qatar said it was “hopeful” that Tehran and Washington could reach a deal paving the way for future negotiations, despite overnight US strikes on Qeshm Island.

Major-General Ali Abdollahi’s plan calls for an end to hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, the complete lifting of sanctions and the unfreezing of Iranian assets and war reparations, Iran’s Tasnim news agency reported on Tuesday.

The plan also calls for recognition of Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, and a guarantee against future aggression under a regional security framework for West Asia.

The plan comes as Qatar steps up mediation efforts amid fears the US-Israel war on Iran, launched in late February, could escalate after the midterm elections in the United States on Tuesday.

Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Majed al-Ansari said in his weekly briefing in Doha on Tuesday that a Qatari delegation held a meeting with Iranian officials in Tehran for more than three hours on Monday, before returning to Doha that evening. Both sides are now reviewing Qatar’s proposal, he said, with mediators exchanging proposals between them in real time.

“If there were no glimmer of hope, there would be no negotiations,” al-Ansari said, adding that Qatar would not speculate on whether an agreement or a military escalation was more likely.

He warned that any escalation, whether attacks on Iranian territory or on shipping, “will have an impact on the negotiations”, and said continuing the Qatari-Pakistani mediation remained a priority. He reiterated that freedom of navigation in Hormuz was nonnegotiable, referring to Doha’s condemnation of the targeting of the Qatari tanker Al-Mayda.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar Atas said mediators were aiming to avert a new round of fighting.

He said a Qatari delegation visited Iran on Friday in response to a letter to Iran from US Vice President JD Vance, and an Iranian delegation travelled to Qatar the following day.

“The Qataris are trying to mediate with Iran, not on a peace deal, but on a framework to restart the negotiations,” he said. Of Monday’s brief visit, he added: “The reading is that the Qataris carried a message to Tehran and immediately left after that.”

“The main issue is the mistrust between the two parties,” Atas said. “The Iranians say that twice previously the US attacked them when they were engaged in diplomacy. That’s why they’re asking for concrete steps, such as lifting sanctions, removing the naval blockade, returning frozen Iranian assets and letting Iran sell oil on the global market.”

US officials reportedly said the military carried out limited strikes on Qeshm Island on Monday that did not amount to a resumption of major combat operations, saying Iran had tried to target a US aircraft and the attack took out the launcher.

One official called it “a defensive measure for Iranians using surface-to-air missiles against US assets”. IRNA reported five explosions on the island, with more blasts heard in Bandar Lengeh. President Donald Trump had said on October 8 that the US would not attack Iran before the midterm elections.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Tuesday it downed two US MQM-170 reconnaissance drones south of Qeshm and destroyed an MQ-9 drone east of the strait.

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s lead negotiator, said, “The ball is in America’s court to prevent war.”

Tehran’s Hamshahri newspaper reported that Iran had updated its target bank to include US bases and infrastructure in Europe.

Zeidon Alkinani, the founding director of the Arab Perceptions Institute, said both sides remained open to diplomacy.

“Diplomacy and force are running in parallel,” Alkinani told Al Jazeera. “The diplomatic channel is alive – it has always been since March, but there hasn’t unfortunately been a fundamental breakthrough.”

Vance had said on Monday he was optimistic about reaching a negotiated settlement.

However, Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said on Tuesday Iran was neither waiting for the outcome of US midterm elections nor shaping its policies around them.

Amid growing concerns about renewed attacks on Iran following Tuesday’s midterm elections in the United States, US forces have struck Iran’s Qeshm Island in what officials have reportedly described as a defensive measure.

In the first attack since June on Qeshm Island, which serves as the primary platform for Iran’s “asymmetric” naval power, according to analysts, the US strikes come as both sides continue to adopt military and diplomatic postures.

Mediation efforts led by Qatar are continuing in a bid to avert a return to all-out war, which began on February 28 when the US and Israel launched strikes across Iran, triggering the closure of the critical Strait of Hormuz, surging oil and gas prices and massive damage to military, civil and energy facilities around the Gulf.

Here’s what we know:

What happened in the attack on Qeshm Island?

Several explosions were heard on Qeshm Island late on Monday, as US media reported that the US military had carried out what officials called “defensive strikes” in the Strait of Hormuz.

The blasts came in rapid succession, according to Iran’s state-owned IRNA news agency. Witnesses told the agency they saw two planes flying over the island, located off Iran’s southern coast along the waterway.

According to The Wall Street Journal, which quoted an unnamed official, the strikes on Monday night appeared limited and were not a resumption of a major operation.

The Associated Press news agency also quoted an unnamed US official as saying Washington had conducted the defensive strikes against “Iranians using surface-to-air missiles against US assets”.

The attack came after IRNA reported that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had destroyed a US MQ-9 drone east of the Strait of Hormuz.

The US first struck a critical desalination plant on Qeshm Island on March 7 – one week into the war. The strike, which Tehran branded a “flagrant crime” against civilians, cut off freshwater supplies to 30 surrounding villages.

But isn’t diplomacy ongoing?

It is, but it is fragile, and mixed messages are coming from both sides.

Qatari mediators have been engaged in indirect talks with Iranian officials in recent days. They have passed messages between the two sides, but the talks appeared to come to an end on Monday with no news of a breakthrough.

An official briefed on the talks told the Reuters news agency that Iran’s delegation had departed from Doha on Sunday, but that a draft proposal was still being circulated, without elaborating on the content.

Qatari mediators travelled to Tehran on Monday night for talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi regarding a version of a draft US-Iran deal which has been under negotiation for the past eight days, an official told Reuters.

Araghchi told IRNA on Monday: “Consultations through mediators are very intensive. We have presented our conditions and proposals, and everything depends on the political rationality of Washington.”

Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei also told a news conference on Monday that the “ball” was in the US’s court as Iran’s demands were “clear and logical”.

He said the plan Iran submitted in September to end the war remained the focus of talks, but that the proposal could be shortened and implemented in “two days”, including reopening the Strait of Hormuz and returning to talks about Iran’s nuclear programme.

On Monday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also said Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei had given the government “certain authorities” over talks with the US, local media reported.

The president added that Tehran would look to resolve the conflict through dialogue.

Khamenei’s apparent approval of diplomacy marks a change since the breakdown of the June memorandum of understanding, which allowed a brief ceasefire and peace negotiations, when the supreme leader said the US could not be trusted.

For the US side, Vice President JD Vance also told reporters on Monday that he was hopeful for a diplomatic solution – just hours before the strikes on Qeshm Island.

“The president and I both feel pretty good about the prospects for potentially coming to a negotiated settlement,” Vance said. “We’ve certainly made some progress. We’ll see if we can make some more.”

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf reiterated on Tuesday that Iran’s response to any US “miscalculation”, such as launching strikes, would be unpredictable.

“The enemy seeks to force the Iranian nation into submission through threats and military action, but they are sorely mistaken; Iran will not submit,” he said.

What has Trump said about diplomacy?

Oil prices dropped by more than 7 percent on Monday. In response, Trump wrote on his Truth Social account that people believe the war with Iran will not resume as mediation efforts continue.

“Iran wants a settlement, as soon as possible. It could happen!” Trump wrote.

He told media at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in Washington, DC, that it looked like efforts were “coming together very nicely”.

“That’s why I guess the oil prices dropped. People found out about it.”

However, Trump also told the US media outlet Axios before his post on Truth Social that he was “in no rush” to decide whether to resume strikes on Iran.

“One way or the other, we will do something, but there is no rush. We crippled them financially. They have no money, no gasoline, and their people are getting very tired of it,” Trump told Axios in an interview.

What happens next?

The US midterm elections are being viewed as the inflexion point for Trump’s decision on what path he takes next.

The president has suggested several times that he could attack Iran following the vote and told the Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN) on Sunday that the conflict would end “very soon one way or the other”, adding that Tehran would either “make a deal, or we’ll just end it”.

Observers say the US will likely renew strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities if they do resume.

In particular, this could include Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain, a highly fortified site that contains two tunnel complexes buried deep underground, and which Trump told US outlet Newsmax last month could be a target. He said the US “may have to go there. We’ll take a shot at that one. We’ll knock it out fast.”

On Sunday evening, commentator Tucker Carlson made a chilling claim: U.S. President Donald Trump may soon use nuclear weapons against Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain facility. Carlson’s comments were posted on X just two days ahead of the Nov. 3 U.S. midterm elections, which Trump has frequently used as a timeframe for when he would conduct a new wave of airstrikes on Iran if he so decides. However, earlier on Monday, Trump downplayed that deadline, answering “no” when asked by reporters whether he was considering attacking after the election is over.

Regardless, Carlson’s claim runs counter to the president’s previous stance on the nuclear weapons issue. Trump has publicly eschewed their use, and while he has discussed attacking Pickaxe Mountain, he’s made it clear it would be by a conventional weapon if he made the call.

Monday afternoon, the White House dismissed Carlson’s asssertion.

“President Trump has a wide range of options available regarding Iran, and he will do what is right to keep the American people safe,” a White House official told us. “Tucker Carlson lost his way long ago due to a debilitating case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and he has no insight into military planning or the Commander-in-Chief’s thinking.”

We don’t know the source of Carlson’s information or if it is in any way accurate. Carlson has experienced a major rift with Trump and has said plenty of shocking things in recent years, especially in regard to Trump’s second term and the war with Iran. Still, he is a very connected figure in right-wing media. Regardless, as TWZ editor-in-chief Tyler Rogoway noted on X, even conjecture that has gone viral about the potential use of a nuclear weapon for the first time since the U.S. bombed Nagasaki on Aug. 9, 1945, merits discussion. It would have such profound and irrevocable repercussions that it should not be ignored. We addressed the same concerns in regard to Russia and Ukraine in 2022.

“If a nuclear weapon were used on [Pickaxe Mountain] in Iran by the US or Israel or an empty field in Ukraine by Russia etc, it doesn’t matter, it would open up Pandora’s box and would make the U.S. and the world dramatically less safe,” Rogoway stated. “This isn’t even a question of how big of a disaster the use, in any manner, of a nuclear weapon would be. It would represent the largest foreign policy error ever by the United States if we were involved. We can only hope this claim isn’t accurate in any way.”

“…And I have no idea if this claim has merit, but this is important nonetheless,” he added in his X thread. “It is massively viral on my X feed. It has to be addressed.”

Pickaxe Mountain, a very hardened Iranian facility also known as Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La, is located in central Iran. As we have noted previously, it is deeply buried and would be a very difficult target to effectively destroy. In the past, Iran has openly discussed plans to produce centrifuges to support its nuclear enrichment efforts at the newer facility located there. It is also estimated to be large enough to house an actual enrichment plant, as well as other nuclear infrastructure, but exactly what is inside remains unconfirmed. Our previous reporting provides deeper insights into Pickaxe Mountain and Iran’s possible intentions for it.

What Carlson said

“Under pressure from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran,” Carlson stated on X. “The target would be Pickax Mountain in central Iran, where Israeli intelligence claims the Iranian government has restarted its nuclear enrichment program. No conventional weapon in the American arsenal can penetrate 300 feet of solid granite to destroy the tunnels where enrichment is supposedly taking place.”

“The only military option is a nuclear strike. Netanyahu has been pushing hard for one,” the commentator added. “‘Bibi calls Trump about it every day,’ says an informed observer. Netanyahu is cornered and desperate. After last week’s election results, he can’t form a government unless Trump intervenes directly in Israeli politics and brokers a deal with other parties that gives Netanyahu 61 seats in the Knesset. Otherwise, he is out as prime minister and on his way to ignominy, investigations and possibly jail. Netanyahu must stay close to Trump. He needs this war.”

What Trump has said about using nuclear weapons

“We don’t need it. Why do I need it?” Trump responded in April when asked if he would use nuclear weapons against Iran. “Why would a stupid question like that be asked? Why would I use a nuclear weapon where we’ve totally in a very conventional way decimated them without it.” 

“A nuclear weapon should never be allowed to be used by anybody,” he added.

WATCH: Trump says he won’t use nuclear weapons in Iran

The American leader reiterated that stance in August.

“They’re totally defeated militarily, so I defeat them, and now I should use a nuclear weapon on top of them? What a stupid question,” Trump responded on Aug. 31 when again asked by a reporter if he would use nuclear weapons against Iran.

Still, Trump sparked concerns about whether he would use nuclear weapons when he threatened to obliterate Iran in April in a social media post.

“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” Trump stated on his Truth Social site. “I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.”

Several experts we spoke with downplayed the chances that Trump would order a nuclear strike on Pickaxe Mountain, but they did not completely rule it out.

“Is it likely? No,” Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association (ACA) and publisher and contributor for the organization’s monthly journal, Arms Control Today, said when we asked if he thought Trump would order a nuclear strike. “Is it possible that an unstable desperate president who has sole authority to authorize nuclear weapons use, would do so, yes. Given the situation, it is crucial that responsible U.S. voices and international leaders speak out against a massive U.S. strike on Iran of any kind.”

“That is highly unlikely,” Hans Kristensen — director, Nuclear Information Project, Federation of American Scientists, explained to us. He also writes the bi-monthly Nuclear Notebook and the world nuclear forces overview in the SIPRI Yearbook. “There is nothing at all in Iran that justifies breaking the 81-year absence of nuclear weapons use. It would be a violation of the international Laws of War, have devastating consequences for U.S. foreign policy and the efforts to prevent proliferation and the use of nuclear weapons. It would be the kind of act where one would hope the people in the nuclear chain of command would refuse to carry out the president’s order.”

“I honestly don’t know that anyone knows that Trump will or won’t do, including Trump,” Stephen I. Schwartz, nonresident senior fellow at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, told us. “… for many years, often without prompting, he has spoken with a mix of wariness and awe about the tremendous power of nuclear weapons. But he has also publicly and repeatedly threatened to utterly annihilate North Korea, Afghanistan, and Iran. So, really, who knows?”

What weapon could the U.S. use if Trump ordered a nuclear strike?

As we have reported in the past, the B61-11 is the only air-delivered nuclear weapon in the U.S. stockpile today that is specifically designed to address this target set. 

“The B61-11 is based on the earlier B61-7, but is substantially different in form and function. It has a heavily reinforced outer shell, possibly with a depleted uranium penetrating nose section, and a rocket booster at the rear to help it penetrate down into underground facilities. Sources differ on the maximum yield of the B61-11, but it is said to either be between 340 and 360 kilotons (identical to that of the B61-7) or to be closer to 400 kilotons. There are also reportedly fewer than 100 of these bombs in the stockpile.”

The first B61-11 versions entered service in the 1960s. We have written extensively about the entire family of these weapons.

Given the yield of the B61-11, “one could probably do the job” of rendering Pickaxe Mountain unusable, Kristensen told us. “The collateral damage from 400 kilotons would be considerable; even if some very deep structures potentially survived, the damage to the overall infrastructure — plus the residual radiation in the soil — would probably make the site unusable. Other potential options include more conventional penetrator attacks to take out access points and accessible infrastructure, or potentially cyber attacks to sabotage or disable equipment and functions.”

“I think there are many non-nuclear options the United States and/or Israel could utilize to prevent Iran from restarting its nuclear weapons program (if, indeed, Iran has made a decision to do that),” argued Schwartz. “That would include using guided conventional bombs to target any entrances to the facility, impeding efforts of personnel to gain access and also complicating/preventing the movement of any materials out of the mountain.”

“Using an ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] would not be a good option,” he added. “For one thing, any ICBM would have to fly over Russia to reach Iran, which would be risky in more ways than one, even if Putin somehow agreed to allow that to happen. For another, ICBM warheads are not designed to penetrate the earth, at least not to any significant depth, so the force of the explosion would largely be ‘wasted’ on the surface, with everything that implies about lethal radioactive fallout. (Using an SLBM [submarine-launched ballistic missile] from a Trident submarine stationed closer to Iran would avoid the overflight risks but would also still be perceived as a threat by Russia and perhaps China after launch, even if we notify them in advance. But W76 and W76-1 warheads are not earth-penetrators, and I doubt we would want to use a 455-kiloton W88, our largest ballistic missile warhead, also not a deep earth-penetrator.)”

Israel has a nuclear weapons program that it does not publicly acknowledge and can deliver warheads via its Jericho ballistic missiles, some tactical jets and maybe even submarines.

It’s possible a special operations forces teams could attempt to raid the facility, access its interior and place a nuclear device inside it, although such a mission would be immensely challenging and extremely risky. We have also talked about the possibility of irradiating the facilities from the inside without using a nuclear warhead, but instead planting and detonating a kind of dirty bomb.

What are the alternatives to nuclear weapons?

As we noted earlier in this story, Trump has brought up the issue of conventional weapons to attack Pickaxe Mountain. In July, he said it was ripe for a “nice big fat shot right in the front door.”

At the time, we discussed how difficult it would be to effectively destroy or render inoperable a hardened, deeply buried facility like Pickaxe.

For years, experts have talked about the likelihood that the main caverns under the mountain are beyond the reach of even the largest known conventional bunker buster bomb in U.S. inventory, the 30,000-pound-class GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). The MOP was developed, at least in part, specifically to hold underground facilities in Iran at risk. Construction at Pickaxe Mountain, especially in the past five years, is a clear response to U.S. threats.

MOPs were the centerpiece during the June 2025 Operation Midnight Hammer strikes, with 12 being dropped on Fordow and another two on Natanz. To get at the actual targets at Fordow, six MOPs were dropped on two specific ventilation shafts, with each successive bomb burrowing deeper down into the complex below. This underscores the challenges that would be involved in attempting a similar operation against Pickaxe Mountain. It is unclear how many MOPs the U.S. has left or whether there are enough to have the same kind of effects on Pickaxe Mountain as they had on Fordow and Natanz. We also don’t even know if any features of the installation, like the ventilation shafts, even exist there to be exploited.

GBU-57 MOP test

CBS News reported last month that the White House and Pentagon “have prepared plans to use a Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb [MOAB] to hit military sites in Iran,” including Pickaxe Mountain, “if ordered by President Trump.” However, the 22,000-pound-class MOAB, also designated the GBU-43/B, is not a deep-penetrating munition, it’s a fuel-air bomb, and it was not immediately clear from that story how the weapon might be employed. The bomb is also only known to be currently cleared for employment via C-130-type aircraft. It has only been used in combat once, in Afghanistan in 2017, where the skies above were entirely permissive. 

MOAB’s use case would be limited against sites like Pickaxe Mountain. While its unique overpressure effects could harm any personnel exposed inside tunnel systems that are open to the outside world, it is unlikely to destroy or even heavily damage the hardened facilities themselves. It could cause damage to external support infrastructure and act as a psychological weapon in its own right, but it is not a bunker buster in any way.

As mentioned earlier, although for a nuclear weapon insertion mission, a much more dangerous option for American forces would be sending U.S. troops directly into Iran to secure and destroy the facility.

“Special Operations Forces [SOF] could render the site off-limits, at least for a time, but that would be a much riskier operation,” Schwartz noted. 

We addressed the SOF option earlier this year in an interview with former U.S. Central Command commander Joseph Votel, who discussed the enormous challenges of putting boots on the ground so deep into Iranian territory. We have frequently discussed the complexities, and pros and cons of a commando raid on an underground nuclear facility.

In a 2024 raid on a Syrian underground missile site, Israeli special operations forces used explosives they brought with them in order to blow up the underground facility, including sophisticated machinery, from inside.

Still doing this deep in Iran could require a relatively large force and an operation that could last days and would include occupying and defending a key area within the country as teams try to access the caverns. It depends on just how accessible and defended Pickaxe Mountain is.

The fallout dangers of using a nuclear weapon against Iran

The B61-11 “would dig up and disperse into the atmosphere large amounts of radioactive material,” Kristensen told us. 

He pointed to the results he derived from the NUKEMAP nuclear weapons explosion effects simulation site to offer a sense of what could happen.

“A surface burst would, depending on wind conditions, spread debris nearly 300 km downwind,” he explained. “Perhaps further, because the simulation calculates a surface bust, while the B61-11 would penetrate a few meters into the rock and therefore increase the fallout issue.”

If highly enriched uranium was stored underground, it would be hard to determine what would happen to it in such an attack, Kristensen added.

“It depends on how the attack is carried out,” Kristensen noted. “It could potentially be entombed or some of it could be lifted up into the atmosphere.”

“U.S. politicians and some civilian military leaders have, since the first Gulf War, periodically and misleadingly claimed that earth-penetrating nuclear weapons can safely and reliably destroy deeply-buried and hardened underground targets with no significant consequences above ground,” Schwartz proffered. “Nothing could be further from the truth, for the simple reason that earth-penetrating nuclear weapons have to, you know, penetrate the earth. That leaves a hole out of which radioactive dirt and gases will spew following any nuclear explosion (as happened more than once at the Nevada Test Site during the Cold War, when nuclear test shafts thought to be properly and fully stemmed or sealed failed, releasing vast and dangerous amounts of radioactive debris, contaminating both the test site and areas downwind.”)

“The larger the explosion, the larger the venting,” Schwartz added. “Depending on which way the winds are blowing, downwind of Pickaxe Mountain could include Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.”

What about the geopolitical fallout?

In his X post, Carlson offered a blunt assessment of the geopolitical ramifications of a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran.

“An American nuclear attack on Iran would set a new precedent,” he stated. “The Russians have already told at least two other governments that an American nuclear strike on Iran would free them to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Pakistan and India would be tempted to do the same against each other, as would North Korea against Seoul. After the first nuclear strike, World War Three is inevitable.”

As we have frequently reported, Putin has rattled the nuclear saber against the West as well as in Ukraine since the early days of his full-on invasion of that country.

“The United States has, Republican and Democratic administrations alike, worked hard to ensure that the achievement of no nuclear weapons use since 1945 is continued,” Kristensen told us. “If the Trump regime were to break that taboo, especially in a situation where there is no imminent or executed Iranian nuclear threat to the United States or its allies, it would turn the United States into the nuclear pariah. It would threaten political relations with allies that have also worked to prevent the use of nuclear weapons. And, yes, if the United States were to break the taboo, other nuclear armed states would feel less inhibited — Putin included.”

“If Trump decides to attack Iran with nuclear weapons in a purely preventive war of choice (with Iran presenting no imminent or probably even short-term threat, making such an attack illegal under international law), it will almost certainly unleash both global condemnation (apart from Israel) and a new wave of nuclear proliferation that will be extremely difficult if not impossible to stop,” said Schwartz. “That would be highly counterproductive for the United States and its allies. And while I am not an economist, it’s not hard to imagine there will be severe and negative global economic repercussions as well.”

The sentiments expressed by the nuclear experts echo what Rogoway stated on X.

“The potential game trees for many potential hotspots around the globe post use would be so terrifying it’s hard to comprehend,” he wrote. “All the softer levers the U.S. once had to deter such a thing, which has been effective for the better part of a century would vanish. Proliferation would explode. The U.S. would likely no longer be a superpower beyond it’s military capabilities and likely short-term wealth. [Every] ounce of moral highground would evaporate. The entire world would be on the brink by default.”

He also stated that this would quickly destroy key alliances.

We have no direct information about whether Trump is even contemplating the use a nuclear weapons against Iran or not. However, a discussion of the wide-ranging ramifications of such an unprecedented act is a worthwhile exercise, especially in these uncertain times, and even more so if this possibility has actually been floated within the administration.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Iranian media report several explosions in Qeshm Island and Bandar Lengeh, as US media say the US military carried out the strikes.

Several explosions have been heard on Iran’s Qeshm Island, as media outlets in the United States reported that the US military carried out what officials called “defensive strikes” in the Strait of Hormuz.

The blasts came in rapid succession late on Monday, according to Iran’s state-owned IRNA news agency. Witnesses told the agency they saw two planes flying over the island, located off Iran’s southern coast near the Strait of Hormuz.

The semi-official Fars news agency said explosions were also heard in the port city of Bandar Lengeh, coming from the direction of the sea.

The Wall Street Journal, citing US officials, reported that the US military carried out the strikes.

Some officials told the Journal the strikes were defensive, aimed at restricting Iran’s ability to attack commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. One official said Washington had deliberately kept the campaign quiet to avoid signalling a return to major combat operations.

The Associated Press news agency also cited a US official as saying the US had conducted defensive strikes against Iranian targets in the Strait of Hormuz. The official said that “Iranians using surface-to-air missiles against U.S. assets” had been targeted.

Reporters with Fox News and Axios said the attacks were in response to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) firing at a US aircraft in the Strait of Hormuz on Monday. Citing a US official, Fox News reporter Jennifer Griffin said the incident did not mark “the start of expanded strikes by the US”.

There was no immediate comment from authorities in Iran or the US.

Earlier on Monday, the IRGC claimed it had captured two US reconnaissance drones south of Qeshm, using electronic warfare systems, and destroyed an MQ-9 drone east of the Strait of Hormuz.

The alleged US attacks come on the eve of crucial midterm elections in the US, with President Donald Trump’s Republican Party fighting to keep control of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

They also come amid intensifying diplomatic efforts to prevent renewed US attacks on Iran.

Trump, writing on his Truth Social platform on Monday, suggested that a deal with Iran could happen soon.

“Oil Prices are dropping like a rock, down almost $10 a Barrel, a record, because people feel that there will not be a war with Iran,” he wrote. “Iran wants a settlement, as soon as possible. It could happen!”

Earlier, when asked by reporters if he was considering striking Iran ⁠after Tuesday’s midterm elections, Trump replied “no”.

Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei had said Tehran’s demands for peace had been clearly communicated to Washington and “the ball is in the US court”.

He said Iran’s proposed plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz had been condensed and could be implemented within two days if Washington met Tehran’s conditions. These included the US lifting its naval blockade of Iranian ports and securing an end to hostilities, paving the way for the reopening of the strait and renewed negotiations.

Tehran, Iran – Iran’s military is warning that if all-out war breaks out again with the United States and Israel, it will be longer and more costly than their rivals expect.

Iran’s armed forces could deploy new weapons and tactics against the US, Israel and other countries, which would be the third major conflict between the countries since June last year.

There have been increasing signs that the US and Israel’s war on Iran, which began on February 28, could restart after the US midterm elections. President Donald Trump said on Sunday that the war with Iran will end “very soon one way or the other” and Tehran should agree a deal or “the hammer” will come down.

Hossein Kanani Moghaddam, a former senior IRGC commander, told Al Jazeera that despite extensive blows to the Iranian armed forces during US and Israeli strikes earlier this year, they are now in better operational shape compared with previous conflicts.

“In terms of offence, our target database has significantly expanded, the range, accuracy and warheads of our missiles have improved and our drone capabilities have increased,” he said.

New enemy assets were being identified and operations in additional geographical areas were being planned, he added. Arkaminia said that previously undisclosed capabilities and targets would be revealed – and used – if Iran is attacked again.

Commanders from Iran’s General Staff of Armed Forces, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Islamic Republic of Iran Army are reported to have recently met Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei to discuss what steps will be taken if attacked again. The response will be immediate and could go beyond the West Asia region, they said.

The IRGC was “100 percent ready” to confront another attack, spokesman Hossein Mohebbi said on Sunday evening, describing “maximum deterrence” as a goal Iran would reach in the near future.

Army spokesman Mohammad Akraminia said the commanders would rely on “asymmetric warfare” tactics that would compensate for the superiority of US military equipment.

He added that “some weaponry was renovated and new equipment was added along with new tactics” during the brief ceasefire period that came after the June memorandum of understanding between Iran and the US.

Last month, state television showed an underground drone production line. The authorities also showcased an upgraded version of the Arash attack drone and claimed that its warhead had doubled to 100kg with improved guidance.

According to a Reuters investigation published last week, numerous military agencies linked with Iran’s defence establishment have evaded sanctions and funnelled billions into military imports to replenish the IRGC. The imports between January 2025 and June this year from China, Russia and Germany to fuel missile and drone production included rocket propellants, explosives, detonators, titanium and heavy-duty trucks that could be used as launchers.

Many Iranian missile defence systems, radars and other equipment were hit during the war. But Kanani Moghaddam said remaining and newly developed systems were becoming more accurate, pointing to the targeting of a US-built F-35 and other warplanes and drones as successes that can be replicated and expanded upon.

“At sea, we have shown that we can easily target supertankers,” he said regarding transit through the Strait of Hormuz that is deemed “unauthorised” by Iranian authorities. He said Iranian attacks on US Navy vessels in September prompted them to stop venturing into the critical waterway since. But the US has continued its naval blockade on southern Iranian ports, while Iran’s civilian population and infrastructure remain largely exposed if the war resumes.

Tehran and other cities across the country lack shelters or early warning systems to protect civilians. Authorities have not reported any progress regarding the promised shelters and gaps in public warning arrangements.

Iran’s electricity grid, as well as oil and gas facilities, petrochemical and steel manufacturers and roads and railways could also be attacked again, making life even more difficult amid the economic crisis.

‘Intelligence weakness’

During both wars, many senior political and military figures of the Islamic Republic were killed by US and Israeli strikes.

The new supreme leader has not been seen or heard from since replacing his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in early March, ostensibly for security reasons.

This has led to tighter domestic security controls, and prompted some voices from within the establishment to raise concerns and demand accountability for intelligence failures and protection of leadership.

“We have been hit and hit hard,” state-linked analyst Hamzeh Rahim Safavi said during a televised debate on Saturday. “The main cause is intelligence weakness, but no one talks about it or is held accountable”.

The analyst is the son of Yahya Rahim Safavi, a former commander-in-chief of the IRGC who currently serves as a senior military adviser to the supreme leader. The analyst said calls by hardliners to acquire a nuclear bomb would not repair intelligence and security weaknesses.

But Esmaeil Kowsari, a former IRGC division commander now a parliamentary national-security commission member, told local media last week that even though the supreme leader and others were assassinated, “the enemies did not reach their main goals”. He said the goals were to overthrow the Islamic Republic and fragment Iran.

“On the eve of their elections, the Americans are trying to pretend that they have achieved victory by causing a ruckus and launching psychological operations, but that is not the truth,” Kowsari said.

United States oil companies have earned more than $130bn in profits during the war on Iran, even as consumers pay much higher prices for key commodities, amid fears that US President Donald Trump may renew fighting after midterm elections.

The estimate, released by The New York Times, is a conservative evaluation based on the performance of 51 large US oil and gas companies in the six months from April through September. By contrast, in the same period in 2025 – when the prices of oil were lower prior to the launch of the US-Israel war on Iran – they collectively earned less than $47bn.

But the gains come as burgeoning living costs are crushing consumers. Americans have spent an extra $150bn on petrol and diesel since the war on Iran began on February 28, according to an analysis by Brown University’s Climate Solutions Lab, which amounts to more than $1,150 per household.

The disparity has fuelled a political debate over who gains and who pays the price for the war. Responding to Trump, Democratic Representative Jim McGovern wrote on X: “We’re not making a ‘freaking fortune,’ we’re PAYING a ‘freaking fortune’.”

US Big Oil in position to profit where others lose

Naser al-Tamimi, a fellow at the Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI) in Milan, Italy, said US energy companies have benefitted from the war in different ways. “Crude producers gain from higher oil prices, while refiners capture exceptional margins as diesel and other fuel supplies tighten,” he said.

Additionally, “damage to Middle Eastern and Russian refineries, disrupted Strait of Hormuz shipments, and sanctions-related trade frictions have intensified shortages”, while “relatively secure US facilities and access to discounted crude strengthen these gains”.

ExxonMobil and Chevron, the biggest US oil companies, on Friday reported profits of between $10bn and $15bn. While the gains are considerable, The New York Times found they generally remained below 2022 levels, when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine caused oil prices to soar to roughly $100 a barrel and raised natural gas prices, compared with the current average of $90 from April through September.

American refining companies also reaped greater profits as global fuel supplies tightened and inventories depleted due to heavy damage to infrastructure in the Middle East and Russia. Valero Energy’s third-quarter profit increased more than sixfold, reaching $6.83bn. Phillips 66 announced its highest quarterly profit on record, with net income jumping to $5.62bn from $133m a year earlier.

Geoffrey Miller, geopolitical analyst and editor of the Gulf States Insights newsletter, said the US-Israel war with Iran “created the largest supply-side shock to global oil and refined products markets in years”.

Miller added that the war “created a risk premium that US-based operators are structurally well placed to monetise”. By contrast, Gulf producers were “hit hard by both higher costs and risks, along with physical damage, which makes their ability to benefit from the higher prices much more difficult”.

Tehran retaliated against the US-Israeli attack by launching missiles and drones at the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), a US-registered independent conflict monitor, found Iran and Iran-backed groups in the region have carried out at least 172 attacks on nonmilitary infrastructure across the six GCC member states. Despite claims by Iranian officials that they were targeting US military facilities, they also hit energy infrastructure.

Iran also effectively blocked passage of most vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. In retaliation, the US imposed a naval blockade on Iranian oil and gas – the tit-for-tat steps raising the risks of transporting energy out of the crucial passageway.

Continued pressure over cost of living

Analysts warned of continued volatility until a durable political settlement between the US and Iran is reached. Oil prices dropped briefly in the summer after a memorandum of understanding was signed in June, but prices quickly soared again when talks broke down.

A more recent escalation in fighting between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis has further compounded the crisis: the Bab al-Mandeb strait that connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, which Saudi Arabia uses to export oil, is now also a theatre of war.

“In the short term, windfall profits will only strengthen oil company balance sheets and shareholder returns,” Miller said. “However, the big profits come with a major caveat. That’s because over the longer term, high oil prices risk harming economic growth prospects and could even contribute towards the outbreak of a recession, which would in turn be likely to lead to reduced demand for oil” and accelerate the transition to renewable energy.

Florence Schmit, senior energy strategist at Rabobank’s global economics and markets team in London, said it was likely that the prices of key energy products would remain high given the uncertainty about the duration of the war in Iran.

“Prices in all markets that have an exposure to this global supply shock – which includes the US – will face high prices also next year, and consumers will continue to feel this price pressure unless governments step in,” Schmit told Al Jazeera.

The US-led war on Iran has raised costs for oil, transport fuels, gas, electricity and food. According to the World Bank Group’s latest Commodity Markets Outlook, commodity prices are set to rise 23 percent this year, as disrupted grain shipments and the El Nino weather phenomenon also threaten harvests and food affordability.

The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization said on October 2 that world food commodity prices rose a further 1.5 percent in September, after reaching their highest level since late 2022 in August, amid adverse weather and trade disruptions in the Black Sea and Strait of Hormuz.

Trump has sought to blame high global fuel prices on Ukraine and pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to halt strikes on Russian refineries, even as Moscow continued to wage attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. The US president has argued that a deal with Russia reversing years of sanctions would help lower diesel prices.

In the Gulf, analysts said higher oil prices will benefit exporters that can maintain shipments, but prolonged insecurity will continue to threaten supply reliability and investment.

“Gulf producers face years of reconstruction and pressure to diversify export routes,” ISPI’s al-Tamimi said. “A diplomatic settlement could ease prices, whereas renewed US-Israeli attacks on Iran risk triggering another regional war, further disrupting Hormuz and prolonging shortages.”

US president warns Iran to make a deal, as IRGC says two tankers have hit mines and caught fire in the Strait of Hormuz.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Saturday that diplomatic contacts with Iran have continued despite escalating tensions in the Middle East, stressing that Washington remains open to a peaceful solution provided its core security concerns are addressed, Anadolu reports.

Speaking to reporters in Atlanta, Rubio said there was no set timetable for the ongoing diplomatic efforts, but emphasized that communication channels remained open.

“There are multiple talks. Talks have actually never stopped,” he said, adding that conversations were taking place both directly and, more often, through intermediaries.

“The president’s preference in any challenge around the world is to try to solve it diplomatically and peacefully, if possible,” Rubio said, referring to President Donald Trump’s approach.

He added that Washington would welcome a diplomatic outcome, provided it did not endanger US national security or leave its principal concerns unresolved.

READ: Iran war damage to US bases may cost billions in reconstruction: Report

At the center of those concerns, Rubio said, are Iran’s nuclear program and what Washington sees as Tehran’s destabilizing role across the region.

He accused Iran of targeting commercial shipping in international waters, warning that attacks on vessels carrying oil, natural gas and other cargo threaten not only maritime security but also global energy and food supplies.

Rubio also pointed to Iran’s support for regional groups, including the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon, arguing that their activities have contributed to instability and security concerns for neighboring countries.

Addressing Gulf security, he reaffirmed Washington’s defense commitments to Saudi Arabia, saying the US remained in regular contact with Riyadh and intended to honor its agreements.

The war on Iran has emerged as a major campaign issue in the United States midterm elections.

Voters are preparing to cast their ballots on Tuesday, November 3, and for many, the effects of the Iran conflict at home are top of mind.

Fuel prices have skyrocketed, driving up the prices of other goods, too.

Polls suggest many Democrats – and Republicans – say this conflict was not worth the consequences.

So will the election shift the Senate and House of Representatives in Democrats’ favour? And what would that mean for the rest of President Donald Trump’s time in the White House?

Presenter: Mohammed Jamjoom

Guests:

Hassan Ahmadian – Associate professor at the University of Tehran and deputy director of the Middle East Scientific and Strategic Studies Center

Patrick Mara – Chairman of the Washington, DC Republican Party

James Butler – Democratic Party strategist

Tehran, Iran – Ongoing contacts through mediators have provided a potential diplomatic opening between Iran and the United States, even as both sides express readiness for renewed military escalation.

After two days of Qatari-mediated talks, Iranian authorities have signalled that a deal remains possible provided that their demands are tangibly implemented. At the same time, they have doubled down on a willingness to expand attacks or even launch preemptive strikes if they deem war is inevitable.

“We are prepared for all scenarios,” Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Al Jazeera on Saturday. “We have upgraded our weaponry, addressed our vulnerabilities, and tested new arms. Our forces are at the highest level of readiness.”

His comments came as US President Donald Trump said on Saturday the talks were going “fine” but added that Iranian authorities were not “reliable”.

The Republican leader, who ordered attacks alongside Israel against Iran on February 28, has repeatedly raised prospects of once more hitting the country’s civilian infrastructure. In recent weeks, he has suggested that an attack could potentially take place after the November 3 midterm elections in the US.

“We still have to take care of, I would say, one or two sites, but we can do that in 10 minutes,” Trump told reporters at a Halloween party at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida about further bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Sequencing and timeline

The mediated talks in Tehran on Friday, and then in Qatar on Saturday, appear to have produced a new tangible result by shortening the period after which Iran’s proposal to partly reopen the Strait of Hormuz can be enforced.

Tehran had previously offered seven days, but that has now come down to two, Araghchi said in his interview with Al Jazeera.

Negar Mortazavi, a senior fellow with the Center for International Policy, said there are “indications” of US interest in a negotiated settlement, citing the continuing Qatar-mediated talks and US Vice President JD Vance’s recent outreach.

“However, Iran is seeking a series of concessions while the United States insists on progress on Iran’s nuclear programme before concessions are made,” she told Al Jazeera.

“Therefore the central difficulty is sequencing and leverage. Each side wants the other to act first.”

Araghchi’s two-day offer indicates some flexibility over sequencing that could also allow both sides to claim an initial diplomatic achievement without immediately resolving their fundamental disagreements, according to Hamidreza Azizi, a senior Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group.

“However, the military statements show the limits of this opening. Iran appears increasingly determined to prevent a repetition of previous scenarios in which negotiations or temporary ceasefires were followed by renewed military conflict,” he wrote on social media. “From Tehran’s perspective, the objective is to make another attack so costly and unpredictable that Washington would have to reconsider the option altogether.”

As the talks were ongoing on Saturday, the office of Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei said he had a meeting earlier with top military commanders to demand “maximum deterrence” through preparedness for an immediate response “without geographical restriction” to any threat.

Targets would include “tangible and intangible” US and Israeli assets, Khamenei said. Iranian authorities have previously said if Iran’s civilian infrastructure is attacked again, seabed cables and infrastructure across the region could also become targets.

After Khamenei’s statement, commanders of the general staff of the armed forces, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the traditional army separately expressed readiness to launch missile, drone and other attacks in case of an escalation of conflict.

State media on Sunday also aired footage of missiles and drones being taken out of massive underground storage sites and deployed during the eight months of war so far.

The authorities also signalled that they expect more potential attacks from the US and Israel, including against Iran’s power grid.

Gholamreza Jalali, commander of the National Organization for Passive Defense, said during a speech on Sunday that they have identified 14 sectors most dependent on electricity that would need support if the war restarts, without naming any.

“Adopting preventive measures in the area of passive defence for the electricity grid is a fundamental principle that all authorities must follow up in their capacities,” he said, adding that officials were considering “network islanding” practices to create different segments that would not all be simultaneously affected by potential bombing.

‘Positive change in tone’

In and around the Strait of Hormuz, vessels continue to be attacked if they refuse to coordinate with the Persian Gulf Strait Authority, the entity set up by Iranian authorities to enforce control and sovereignty in the critical waterway.

At least four tankers were identified as being hit on Friday and Saturday, although not all attacks are reported by vessels and monitors. According to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations, a vessel carrying liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) was struck by three Iranian projectiles on Saturday about 40 nautical miles (74km) south of Iran’s Lavan Island, deep into the Gulf.

Transit in the strait and surrounding waterways will not return to normal unless the US takes steps towards Iran’s conditions, security chief Mohsen Rezaei told state television during an interview on Saturday night.

For the sequencing to work, he said Tehran wants the US to lift its naval blockade that has halted oil exports and the majority of Iran’s trade, which used to be facilitated through its southern ports. The US must also issue waivers for oil sanctions, unfreeze Iran’s assets abroad, stop fighting on all regional fronts, including Lebanon, and recognise a bilateral Iran-Oman arrangement for Hormuz.

Rezaei said he has yet to respond to a letter addressed to him by Vance, although he said the missive indicated a “change in tone” that he described as “positive”.

Mostafa Najafi, a Tehran-based political analyst said to be linked with Rezaei, said if the conditions are not met, the letter is likely to go unanswered and negotiations – including on Iran’s nuclear programme – will not enter a higher level.

“It is unclear how willing Washington is to accept these demands. It is clear that not recognising rights emphasised by Iran will lead to the failure of the negotiations,” he wrote on X.

The US has also doubled down on the effectiveness of its Operation Economic Outcast involving the blockade, sanctions and pressure on overland trade and aviation.

A report by the US Treasury to inform Trump’s decision-making, which was publicised by news outlet Axios, said no new oil had been loaded onto tankers at Iran’s terminals since August 25. It also showed overseas crude deliveries were down, while Iran’s year-on-year inflation neared 90 percent in September and the national currency continued to dwindle.

The report said Iran’s economy was “crippled” by the combined measures, but did not argue that it was close to collapsing.