U.S. President Donald Trump stated on Friday evening that Washington may launch another military operation against Iran.
Once they are done with Iran, the U.S. “will deal with” Cuba, he added, saying he would send Secretary of State Marco Rubio to “strike a deal.”
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
“We’ll deal with Cuba after Iran (…) and then we’ll send Marco Rubio to finalize the deal,” he said at a campaign rally in Florida.
U.S. analysts are considering the possibility of renewed large-scale bombings against Iran, even immediately after the November 3 midterm elections in the U.S., believing that the buildup of military forces in the region and the latest moves by Washington and Israel are signs of preparations for a new operation. At the same time, however, they warn that neither the United States nor Tehran appears to have a military option capable of bringing the conflict to a definitive end.
The confrontation between the two countries has recently been confined mainly to the sea, as the U.S. maintains a blockade of Iranian ports in the Persian Gulf, while Iran is attempting to control the strategically important Strait of Hormuz.
Since early September, neither side has launched a large-scale attack against land-based targets. However, the protracted military standoff, combined with the mounting pressures caused by the blockade, reinforces the view that the current situation is unlikely to be sustained indefinitely.
Why analysts foresee new attacks following the November 3 election
Susan Maloney, a researcher at the Brookings Institution, considers a new wave of attacks likely immediately after the midterm elections in the United States.
“I now believe there is a possibility of attacks shortly after the midterm elections,” she notes, citing a series of military and political indicators.
Among these, she cites the buildup of U.S. military forces in the Middle East, warnings to U.S. citizens in the region, as well as the heightened operational readiness of the Israeli armed forces.
According to her, the election schedule is also of particular importance. U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly stated that he will not order new attacks against Iran before the election, as such a move would not serve his political interests.
The war launched by the U.S. and Israel on February 28, 2026, has caused significant discontent among the American public, mainly due to the sharp rise in energy prices.
The financial burden on households is likely to negatively affect the Republicans in the crucial election, a fact which, according to Maloney’s assessment, limits Trump’s room to maneuver for further military escalation before the election.
At the same time, the researcher emphasizes that the current state of military confrontation is not sustainable. The blockade of Iranian ports is constantly increasing pressure on Tehran, but it requires the United States to maintain a sustained commitment of significant naval and other military forces. Consequently, he considers finding a way out to be inevitable. “There must be some kind of solution, either through diplomacy or through military action,” he says.
Trump: “We could be done very quickly”
The U.S. president himself left open the possibility of a new military operation against Iran, linking it to the prospect of reaching an agreement with Tehran.
When asked on Friday about the situation, Donald Trump assured that “it could be over very quickly.”
Shortly afterward, during a campaign speech, he warned that a “little Epic Rage” could follow if no agreement is reached.
His reference alludes to the name of the U.S. military operation that began on February 28, in conjunction with Israel, marking the start of the war against Iran.
“Impossible to predict” the timeline
Jason Campbell, a researcher at the Middle East Institute in Washington, also shares the assessment that there are serious indications of preparations for new U.S. attacks.
As he notes, there have been “irrefutable recent indications suggesting that the imminent resumption of bombing raids is being considered.”
Among the developments he cites are the expected arrival in the region of the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, the deployment of additional Marine Corps forces, and the recent show of military force by the Israeli Air Force.
In the same context, U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegesez visited Israel this week, who met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Despite these indications, Campbell notes that it remains “impossible to predict” when new attacks might begin.
The researcher also argues that Trump’s military options are now more limited than they were at the start of the war.
The damage sustained by U.S. bases in the Middle East significantly complicates the possibility of a major ground operation against Iran.
“At this stage, there is no safe location to deploy the thousands—or, in some scenarios, tens of thousands—of troops that such an operation would require,” he explains.
The risk of strikes on civilian facilities
According to Susan Maloney, a new U.S. air campaign could have very different characteristics from previous phases of the war.
The researcher estimates that most of Iran’s conventional military facilities have already suffered severe damage from previous bombings.
This means that any new strikes are likely to target civilian facilities, with direct consequences for the country’s population.
Such a development could further exacerbate the humanitarian situation and increase the cost of the conflict, without necessarily ensuring that Washington’s strategic objectives are achieved.
Why analysts don’t see a military solution
Despite speculation about a possible resumption of bombing, both Maloney and Campbell dispute that a new period of intensive military operations could end the war.
“This is a war that cannot be ended by further escalation on either side,” argues the Brookings Institution researcher.
Campbell agrees, noting that even a new air campaign of the same intensity as that of the first 50 days of the war would be unlikely to force the Iranian leadership to reconsider its strategy.
“I don’t see how resuming strikes against Iran,” on a scale “comparable to that of the first fifty days of the war, could significantly alter the Iranian regime’s strategic calculations,” he notes.
As he explains, Tehran has already demonstrated that it can “absorb heavy losses” without changing course.
The two analysts’ assessments therefore converge that a new military escalation could cause further destruction and casualties without securing a political or strategic way out of the conflict.
Source: APE-MPE/PROTO THEMA
