Washington is weighing a major military escalation against Iran in the weeks after the US midterm elections, according to lawmakers and media reports, raising alarms among allies in the Gulf and across the Indo-Pacific about a new round of conflict in the Middle East.
Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, disclosed on October 28 that he was among members of Congress briefed behind closed doors on the Trump administration's discussions of a possible post-midterm assault on Iran. After the classified session, Murphy told an event hosted by the Middle East Institute that his assessment was blunt: “Their plan is insane.”
Murphy, who recently traveled to Gulf countries to survey damage from Iranian retaliation against US military installations, said the briefing gave lawmakers “a fairly detailed conversation about what the war plan would be if we restarted military operations.” He declined to share specifics but said administration officials described a “short-duration plan”—a familiar refrain from a White House that promised a quick war when it first launched strikes on Iran.
“It will lead to devastating escalation and the likely destruction of our commitment to the rule of law,” Murphy warned. He added that “there’s been open reporting as to what we may be planning and the civilian infrastructure that we may be targeting.”
“They’ve been asked by the president to develop a plan,” Murphy continued. “The plan that they have developed will lead, in my view, to a prolongment and an escalation of this war that would be devastating for our security interests.”
Gulf allies told to prepare for a short, intense campaign
Major outlets including The Associated Press, CNN, and The Wall Street Journal have reported that the Trump administration has notified Middle East allies of a potential new military assault on Iran following the elections. According to the Wall Street Journal, the US “has told several Gulf Arab countries to be prepared for a short, intense military campaign” in Iran.
Citing unnamed officials, CNN reported that Trump “has not made up his mind on what he will do after the midterms but that he appears to be leaning toward ordering major action.” The network noted that “leaders in US Central Command and the Pentagon have been developing a wide-ranging target list, which includes Iranian energy infrastructure, military sites, and nuclear facilities.”
Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), called Murphy’s remarks “a chilling warning that underscores the need to end the Iran war immediately.”
Sina Toossi, a senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy, said he increasingly believes “some level of infrastructure warfare between the US/Israel and Iran, on a scale we haven’t yet seen, is inevitable.” But he cautioned that such a conflict might not last long: “I expect Iran would retaliate on a scale that would compel the US to stop quickly.”
“Yet if that doesn’t happen, the consequences could be disastrous for all sides,” Toossi added. “The destruction of critical regional energy infrastructure would greatly exacerbate the existing energy crisis, likely push many economies, including the US, into recession, and deal a devastating blow to the rest of Trump’s presidency and his legacy.”
Trump himself has floated an attack while campaigning for Republicans. At a rally in Lubbock, Texas, he told supporters: “You’ll see Iran in a couple of weeks, if you don’t mind.”
Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance—widely seen as the leading contender for the Republican nomination in 2028—has reportedly reached out to a senior Iranian official in an attempt to revive diplomacy. The Journal reported that Vance, with Trump’s approval, “sent a letter to Mohsen Rezaei, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and previously Iran’s longest-serving commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.” The report said Vance is testing whether Tehran and Washington could find enough common ground to persuade Trump not to give a final order for an attack. Trump publicly denied directing Vance to pursue peace talks.
Costello said that “while the desire to pursue an off-ramp is positive, Trump needs to walk the walk.” He added: “Thus far, there is little to indicate a new approach and a serious desire to end the war. There is no military solution to the conflict with Iran, yet Trump still seems to think there is and that he’ll get to decide when the next round of fighting pauses. These are wrong-headed and dangerous conclusions to hold.”
On the Iranian side, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote in a Financial Times op-ed that Tehran is “firmly committed to seeking a dignified peaceful resolution to the conflict, but we are also fully prepared to defend ourselves.” He argued that Trump “entered this war on the basis of fundamentally erroneous assumptions about Iran’s fortitude” and that the president “continues to be wrongly told that our armed forces are unprepared to defend the homeland, despite all evidence to the contrary.”
The prospect of a new US-Iran confrontation carries significant implications for Asia, where energy security and maritime stability are closely tied to the Strait of Hormuz. Middle East actors are already hedging against US policy shifts, and a renewed conflict could ripple through global markets and Asian economies. US senators have demanded full disclosure of Iran war costs, reflecting growing unease in Congress. As the midterms approach, the region watches warily for a decision that could reshape the balance of power in the Gulf and beyond.
