Reports have described movements and exercises involving fighter jets believed to be Israeli over Iraqi airspace near the Iranian border, potentially intended as a show of military strength and a means of pressuring Tehran.
However, neither the identity of all the aircraft nor the nature of their missions has been independently verified. There is insufficient publicly available evidence to conclude that these activities are confirmed preparations for an imminent attack.
Meanwhile, Israel’s public broadcaster KAN quoted a security source who believes that military confrontation with Iran will eventually resume, but not before the Israeli elections on October 27 and the US midterm elections on November 3.
Following his visit, Hegseth confirmed that he had met with American troops and Netanyahu but declined to disclose the details of their discussions.
THE OBSERVER’S VIEW | Has War Against Iran Become Hostage to the Electoral Calendars in Washington and Tel Aviv?
FIRST | Washington Talks About Diplomacy While Keeping the Military Option Open
Iran has every right to question the credibility of negotiations when military threats continue and plans to strike its territory are being discussed alongside diplomatic initiatives.
The crisis of trust is further deepened by the fact that previous American and Israeli attacks on Iran took place while diplomatic negotiations were either underway or scheduled to resume.
If Washington is genuinely serious about reaching an agreement, ending military threats and attacks must become an essential part of any meaningful de-escalation process.
SECOND | Netanyahu Is Exploiting Regional Escalation for Political Gain
The timing of Hegseth’s visit, the exclusion of senior military commanders from the meeting, and reports of preparations for another offensive all raise legitimate questions about the intersection of Israel’s electoral calculations and decisions concerning war.
However, the exclusion of the military chief of staff does not, by itself, prove that a decision to attack has been made, nor does it necessarily indicate divisions within Israel’s military establishment.
The real concern is that decisions capable of plunging the entire region into a full-scale war are being discussed in an extremely sensitive political and electoral environment.
THIRD | Iran Is Under No Obligation to Accept Military Threats as a Means of Negotiation
If the leaked reports are accurate, plans to strike Iranian power plants represent an extremely dangerous escalation.
Disrupting civilian infrastructure could leave millions of people facing electricity shortages, water supply disruptions, and the breakdown of essential services.
From a military-strategic perspective, it cannot be assumed that airstrikes would automatically force Tehran to surrender to American and Israeli demands.
On the contrary, such attacks could expand the confrontation and dramatically increase its costs for the entire region.
Iran also has the right to defend its territory and sovereignty, while every effort must be made to protect civilians on all sides from the consequences of further escalation.
CONCLUSION | Postponing a War Does Not Mean Cancelling It
The visit to Ovda Air Base and the developments that followed demonstrate that the possibility of renewed military confrontation with Iran remains very real.
They also suggest that electoral considerations may influence the timing of military decisions more than they alter the underlying strategic confrontation.
However, there has been no official announcement of a new decision to attack Iran, nor is there verified evidence establishing when another offensive might take place.
The most important message is clear: If Washington and Tel Aviv genuinely want regional stability, they cannot continue threatening to bomb a sovereign nation while simultaneously demanding that it make concessions under the threat of war.