Ahead of US and Israeli elections, 3-day joint attack on Iran 'would not radically change conflict'

In a fresh report, the New York Times says that American and Israeli militaries have drawn up plans for a short, intensive campaign, potentially targeting Iran's nuclear facilities, energy and missile stockpiles. The planning is not approved. Donald Trump has repeatedly pulled back from renewed strikes, including earlier this month. Tehran warns its retaliation could extend to data centers and undersea Internet cables. With diplomacy stalled, the question remains, would another bombardment force concessions or unleash a wider, still and costlier war. We got more analysis with Noga Tanepolsky, our correspondent in Jerusalem, with the latest take on those reports with the Israeli elections specifically in mind. There are numerous reports about fairly advanced Israeli and American planning for an attack on Iran, including reports that Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu has been pushing hard to already have attacked Iran ahead of the elections here in Israel. And his really daily claims now that Iran is about to attack Israel, this is being seen by the opposition in Israel facing elections just on Tuesday as an effort to really scare Israelis into perhaps staying home from the vote or scaring them into thinking that only he can basically secure their protection inside the state. The chief of the opposition here, Yair Lapid, put out a really furious statement just this morning. He, of course, gets the same level of intelligence briefings as the prime minister. And he said that there is no reason Israel should attack Iran, absolutely none. And he said that politicizing military and security considerations is, and I quote now, giving a gift to Israel's enemies. But we do know that the prime minister has made significant efforts, which were in vain, to persuade Donald Trump already to renew an attack on Iran. And that right now, American media principally is discussing the possibility of a joint military effort, Israeli and American military effort, right after the U.S. midterms. For more analysis, let's bring in Federico Donnelli, professor of international relations at the University of Trieste. He joins us right now. Professor Donnelly, thank you so much. Let's just start on that New York Times report, because it intimates that the United States and Israel would plan for a very brief, very concise operation of about three days. But I'm just curious. We're now eight months after the start of the conflict and Iran has yet to concede. And if you're Israel or the United States, why would you suppose that another three days could change that? Well, we have to consider that the current reports consider military option, but it would be cautious to be interpreting as an evidence of an imminent joint operation, because we also have to consider how much the news about potential new operation could be important from the political point of view. So I think that right now we both, United States and Israel, are considered an option to lead another operation. But these three days of operation most probably would not change radically the conflict because in three days most probably they can have potential targets, include military capabilities, missile infrastructure and nuclear related facility. But if we consider from the strategic level, the real question is whether military pressure is intended to constrain Iran's capacity or to pressure Iran to sit on the table. That's on the political front for Iran. But what about the U.S. midterms and the Israeli elections? I mean, what's the goal with the timing here? Well, the timing, of course, is important. The electoral calendar is one of the main factors in the political calculus, but it should not be treated as a reliable predictor of military action. I think the economic cost of the conflict, domestic and political consideration are definitely important. The report suggesting that Washington opposed renewed strikes before the midterm election, but they do not establish that the operation will follow afterwards. The absence of an immediate attack should not be confused with a decision either to escalate or to de-escalate. A different discourse is related to Israel because the two countries are pursuing not the completely same objective. So this is an important aspect to be considered as well. I was just wondering where Donald Trump's head is right now, because it seems like the buck stops with him. That being said, it seems like the final decision rests with him, according to these reports. But as you say, the American president has yet to commit to anything. And he, in fact, did prevent another attack on Iran earlier in the last couple of months. So I'm just curious, what is his thinking going into the midterms and after? Well, I think that the position, the Trump position, is definitely affected by the domestic election polls. and we know he knows that most probably another attack will affect a lot a campaign that is already very difficult for him and for his party at the same time he needs to reassure the position of the United States especially especially as a strong ally with Israel and we know how much is important for Prime Minister Netanyahu in the upcoming election to present the Israeli strategy to guarantee the long-term or to address the long-term threats posed by Iran. So I think that in some way, President Trump is trying to navigate between domestic constraint, so political election in the US, and on the other side, the strong ally with Israel and the special relationship that he has with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Who he endorsed not just a week ago for the Israeli premiership once again, but whose Likud party is not doing terribly well in the polls and may not get a majority. If Netanyahu loses the election on October 27, just how much would that constrain his ability to cause another offensive? What does he hope for right now? Well, this is another scenario that we have definitely considered because you're right, most probably Netanyahu does not have enough majority, enough votes to rule the country. but at the same time he's always his history his background show how much he's able to manage different faction in order to keep the power and control so depends how he decided to navigate that uh that afterwards of the election in case of far right or we can say more hawks parties victory of course there will be probably a new offensive if he decided to move closer to the center and center left if you want to parties most probably he we will be more constrained that doesn't mean that doesn't mean to find a diplomatic solution but at least he has to manage more before launching new offensive absolutely now i'm just interested because there is of course the other side of this. We mentioned Iran has dug deep. They have survived the eight months. The United States and Israel, believing that another offensive could tip them over the economic edge, at least, and Donald Trump would use or would be tempted to use the mother of all bombs, MOAB, and that would be to target nuclear facilities. That's all detailed quite explicitly in this latest fresh story by the New York Times. That being said, Iran would likely retaliate. And just what kind of retaliation are we talking about? And how would that affect the world economy going forward, which is already desperately stretched? Yeah, definitely. I think that the response, the Iranian response would most probably depend on the scale and the nature of the attack and the targets selected by the US and Israel. And of course, the possible escalation or response could involve direct military action pressure on the U.S. asset in the in the region that means also address some a target into the gulf states the the strong ally of the united states or measure affecting maritime security of course you will see from the global point of view or european point of view if you want a maritime security's main problem is related to inflation to the rising of living prices and as you show before me there are many riots around europe right now and of course this could be make even worse the situation in many european capitals so i just want to get into your uh expertise uh head and just understand you know if we look at this from the perspective of previous instances where, I guess, political survival was on the line and we'd had all of these social pieces of fraction going on at the same time. What do you anticipate, especially given the fact that the United States can only get its personnel and its required military strength up to standard in early November at the earliest? Well, I think that, of course, we have to be ready to another offensive. And I really believe that for the United States, that could be also a strategic decision, because the idea to make more military pressure to Iran is also a way to force Iran to sit around the table and try to negotiate. so it could be also an incentive but at the same time I think that we have to consider the potential implication in the wider region because we are talking about Iran but we have to follow also what is going on in Yemen because we know that one of the main assets that Iran still has is related to Houthi and we have seen how much Houthi is threatening not only Saudi Arabia and the pipeline of Saudi Arabia that means oil and the price of oil, but also Bab al-Mandeb and the strait. So that means economic and financial assets at the global level. So I think that at the same time, Iran still has leverage to the US. So it depends how much the United States will be able to bargain this relationship with Tehran. And how much appetite there will be as a result. Thank you so much, Professor Federico Donelli. He comes to us from the International Relations Department at the University of Trieste.