Vahid Khazab, a regular commentator on the state television program Be Vaght-e Iran (Iran Time), argued Monday night that the circumstances that allowed the 12-day war to end no longer applied.
He recalled that Trump declared that conflict over after the United States struck Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility and Tehran retaliated against the Al Udeid air base in Qatar. This time, he said, a strike would leave the question of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz unresolved.
“Suppose he attacks Kuh-e Kolang (Pickaxe Mountain) and then says, ‘That’s it, it’s over.’ Well, what happens to the Strait of Hormuz?” Khazab asked.
“This means the war has not ended. That is why a symbolic move like the one during the 12-day war is not possible,” he added.
Khazab argued that Trump needed to end the conflict either through military action or an agreement, while portraying Iran as unwilling to make concessions in negotiations.
He urged Tehran to convey a warning that renewed attacks would provoke retaliation carrying lasting economic and political costs for Washington.
“Trump must understand this. It is very important that this message be conveyed to him — publicly, officially, secretly, in any way — that if you attack again, Iran will respond in a way that will seriously jeopardize the next two years of your future and America’s future, particularly by causing economic problems, including a recession,” he said.
“This would make him refrain from taking risks, including launching even a short war, regardless of the electoral outcome, in order to protect his legacy.”
Nima Akbarkhani, another regular panelist introduced on the program as a military expert, discussed the possibility of Trump staging a “major, spectacular Hollywood-style operation” to declare victory and end the war.
He argued that even such an operation would leave Trump in a difficult political position if Democrats won the midterm congressional elections.
Mehdi Abbasi, a guest introduced as a US affairs expert, speculated that a Democratic victory could prompt Trump to attack Iran during the roughly two months before the new Congress takes office in January.
Limited strikes and plans for further attacks
The discussion came amid limited US military action and reports of preparations for a potentially broader confrontation.
The United States struck Iran’s Qeshm Island on Monday as part of a series of limited attacks in recent weeks, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing US officials.
Trump said Tuesday that US forces had destroyed an Iranian anti-aircraft installation that he said had taken about two months to build.
The New York Times separately reported Tuesday, citing US officials, that US Central Command had a plan to begin strikes against Iran as early as Wednesday, after the midterm elections. The reported plan did not establish that Trump had ordered an attack.
Responding to the Qeshm strike, Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said Tuesday that Iran remained in a state of war and retained the right to defend itself until military aggression against it had ended completely and permanently.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Monday that reports of plans for further military action against Iran were deeply concerning and urged renewed diplomatic efforts.
Tehran holds to its demands
Tehran and Washington continue to exchange messages through intermediaries, including Qatar. Trump and Vice President JD Vance have expressed optimism about diplomacy, while Iranian officials insist Washington must meet Tehran’s conditions.
Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said Tuesday that Washington’s response to Tehran’s demands was unconvincing. He said the Strait of Hormuz would reopen only after the United States explicitly addressed and implemented Iran’s seven conditions.
Vance sent Rezaei a letter through Qatar several days earlier. Rezaei did not specify whether his Tuesday remarks referred to that letter or another message conveyed through intermediaries.
Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf also warned Tuesday that Tehran’s response to a possible US attack would be unpredictable.
President Masoud Pezeshkian, meanwhile, reiterated that Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had granted his government additional powers to pursue negotiations.
Pezeshkian said his administration would seek to resolve the conflict through diplomacy but did not specify the scope of that authority.
His emphasis on negotiations drew criticism from hardline commentator and university professor Foad Izadi, who argued that such statements could help Washington choose the timing of another attack.
In a post responding to Pezeshkian, Izadi cited Trump’s remarks that oil prices were falling because people believed there would be no war with Iran and that Tehran wanted an agreement quickly.
Izadi accused Pezeshkian of helping Trump lower public expectations of war and manage oil prices by repeatedly emphasizing negotiations. He warned that Washington could attack again in the middle of diplomatic exchanges, at a time of its own choosing.
Speculation over nuclear weapons
Some Iranian commentary has also raised the possibility of nuclear weapons being used in a renewed confrontation, although Gharibabadi said Tuesday that Washington had not announced an official position on using such weapons against Iran.
Hossein Ajorlou, an international relations academic, told Fararu that a broad but short operation using powerful conventional weapons remained the most likely scenario.
He nevertheless speculated that Washington could consider tactical nuclear weapons if it failed to secure a quick result and reached a military stalemate.
Ajorlou emphasized that he considered conventional weapons, including bunker-busting bombs and precision-guided munitions, the likelier option.
Limits of a change in Congress
Several Iranian commentators have cautioned that a shift toward Democrats in Congress would not necessarily prevent another military confrontation.
Ali Hassan Heydari, an international affairs analyst writing for the hardline Siraj24 website, argued that victory for either party should not be interpreted as a fundamental change in Washington’s strategic approach.
A Democratic victory could nevertheless raise the political and financial costs of continuing the war and restrict Trump’s freedom of action, he wrote.
“This matters for Iran’s calculations, but it should not lead to a strategic miscalculation, because the outcome of the war and the question of the Strait of Hormuz will not be determined solely by the composition of Congress,” Heydari wrote.
“The elections may change the rules of Trump’s game, but resolving the confrontation with Iran requires decisions and agreements that go beyond the US ballot box.”
Amirali Abolfath, a US affairs expert, similarly cautioned against expecting a change in congressional control to end the conflict.
“We should not place too much hope in the idea that a change in the composition of Congress alone will bring the war to a halt, although these changes are not without effect and should not be viewed in absolute, black-and-white terms,” he told ISNA.
