Trump Preparing for a ‘Short, Intense’ War Against Iran After Election Day

On the menu today: If, in the past five months or so, you argued that the memorandum of understanding with the Iranian regime was a terrible mistake and an insane series of concessions to one of the world’s most duplicitous regimes, you were probably accused of having “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” This week, President Trump declared the cease-fire with Iran to be “a waste of time.” This morning, the Wall Street Journal reports that the U.S. is preparing for “a short, intense military campaign” against Iran “after the U.S. midterm elections.” As high as gas prices are today — a national average of $4.24 — you’re probably going to want to fill up your tank before Election Day. Read on.

President Trump, discussing Iran while speaking at a campaign rally in Corinth, Miss., Monday: "We did a little cease-fire, which I never liked very much. I consider it sort of a waste of time but, you know, you like to listen to professionals. But we did a little cease-fire, so we let some ships get in. You know, we want to be nice, but it was just a waste of time, as far as I’m concerned. But, uh, we’re doing a job."

We’re doing a job for you. And the price of oil — the price of oil is lower than it was, another thing the congressman said, with Biden and Obama, and they didn’t do anything having to do with destroying nuclear capability from Iran and our oil prices are lower than theirs. But they’ll be down, like I said, in Iowa, when I made a speech, it was $1.85 on the top of the — on the top of the jigger and it was $1.95. There were two pumps, $1.85, $1.95. I said, man, it’s a shame I have to do this, but we really had no choice, you know?

And it’s worked out fine and it’ll be over soon. And they’re never going to have a nuclear weapon. So really good — really good statement you made, congressman. Thank you. From 1979 and probably before that with a different name, you know? Right here in Mississippi, Toyota is investing $125 million to expand production at its Blue Springs plant. The notion that the cease-fire was a “waste of time” is not particularly surprising to any of us who had been saying that there could be no lasting or productive agreement with a regime of Iranian mullahs that is so inherently hostile, so habitually duplicitous, so instinctively provocative. (Recall that the Iranians started breaking the terms of the agreement almost immediately.)

Trump’s comments about “you like to listen to professionals” appear to be shifting the blame to other figures in his administration for the decision to pursue a cease-fire with Iran. (The buck stops somewhere else.) If Trump is referring to Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, then maybe he shouldn’t entrust them with representing the United States in every high-stakes international negotiation. If he is referring to Vice President JD Vance and his contention that the Iranian regime had turned over a new leaf — “you see people within the Iranian system, senior leadership, even IRGC officials say, you know what, we may have some animosity, we may have some mistrust, but we recognize the way that we’ve done business with the United States for 47 years is a mistake, let’s try something else” — then there are some much bigger problems here.

This morning, the Wall Street Journal reports that the administration is preparing for a “short, intense military campaign” against Iran . . . again . . . for the second time in less than a year: "The U.S. has told several Gulf Arab countries to be prepared for a short, intense military campaign after the U.S. midterm elections, people briefed on the conversations said. The communications through diplomatic and military channels are among a growing number of indications that the U.S. and Israel are readying to launch a new round of heavy combat operations against Iran, risking a major escalation in hopes of degrading Tehran’s strength and pushing it toward negotiations. The U.S. military is sending an additional Patriot system to Israel from Texas to beef up its missile defenses in the country, according to flight tracking data and two officials with knowledge of the movement. The U.S. has also moved troops off bases in the Middle East where they were vulnerable in preparation for an escalation."

As we have noticed, operations that are planned as “short, intense military campaign” have a bad habit of becoming not-so-short. The other guys have a say in how they respond, and we have good sense of what Iran’s go-to move is: terrorism.

Axios reported Friday that director of national intelligence Jay Clayton wrote in a memo to Secretary of State Marco Rubio: "We have received intelligence that Iran has substantially increased efforts to target U.S. personnel. The lethal plotting efforts by the Iranians against U.S. citizens have reached advanced stages in both the Middle East and certain other countries."

And if large-scale hostilities resume, we should expect Iran’s proxies to get involved as well. From the Jerusalem Post, October 15: "The Iranian regime told Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon to be prepared for the United States to resume the war with Iran, following Wednesday’s report that Iran currently estimates that 'an American attack is only a matter of time,' two diplomatic sources told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday." Sources told the outlet that Hezbollah is “anticipating” war and “has succeeded in taking advantage of the extended ceasefire period to rebuild its military capabilities in southern Lebanon, both south and north of the Litani River.”

The Houthis are already attacking Saudi Arabia’s energy infrastructure; we should expect those attacks to intensify. You can figure out what the likely consequences for the world’s energy markets will be. The White House press office told the Journal that it wouldn’t comment on “sensitive military plans that may or may not exist.” But the fact that the president is considering restarting the war against Iran isn’t much of a secret, because he’s told us himself.

On Friday, Trump said during a rally in Fort Myers, Fla., “We may do another little Epic Fury, or they’ll agree. If they’re smart, they’ll just say, let’s get down to business. But, you know, I doubt they’ll do that because perhaps they’re not smart. But we’re — we’re — we did a number on them.” Once again, let us turn to the wisdom of Stephen Covey and his adage, “Begin with the end in mind.” What is it we actually want to achieve regarding the Iranian regime?

Does the administration want to topple the regime? Apparently not, because you don’t negotiate with a regime you’re aiming to topple. But if you believe that the primary problem with the Iranian regime is the Iranian regime, and that a group that regularly chants “death to America” can never be a partner in peace or even a détente-style policy of non-hostility, then your long-term goal must be regime change, and your shorter-term goals must be weakening, countering, and deterring the regime. (Recall that Trump fumed in August, “Iranian Leadership is unbelievably duplicitous!” Well, some of us find them believably duplicitous.)

When discussing Iran, the president reflexively reverts to the question of whether it is acceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Obviously, it is not. But after Operation Midnight Hammer, on June 21, 2025, Trump declared to the world, “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.” A few days later he reiterated, “Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!” In September 2025, Trump said, “I also obliterated Iran’s nuclear hopes by totally annihilating their enriched uranium.”

But by February 21, Witkoff appeared on the Fox News program of president’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, and warned that the Iranians were “probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material, and that’s really dangerous.” How did the program go from being “totally annihilated” to a week away from having bomb-grade uranium?

A week later, when Trump announced the beginning of major combat operations in Iran, he said, “They attempted to rebuild their nuclear program.” There were no specifics about how, or how much of, the Iranian program had been rebuilt. Americans were understandably confused, because the president had spent half a year talking about how the program had been destroyed, and how it presumably couldn’t be reconstituted within just a couple months.

In an address to the nation in April, Trump said that the Iranian regime had been “right at the doorstep” of a “a nuclear weapon like nobody’s ever seen before.” He did not elaborate, but then said, “the nuclear sites that we obliterated with the B-2 bombers have been hit so hard that it would take months to get near the nuclear dust. And we have it under intense satellite surveillance and control.”

In June, in an interview with Jake Tapper on CNN, Vice President Vance said, “Right now, the Iranian nuclear program has been completely destroyed. Their capacity to enrich uranium, their enriched stockpile of fuel is buried far below the earth. . . . Have we decimated their nuclear program? Yes.”

If you keep telling people that the Iranian nuclear program is completely obliterated, annihilated, destroyed, decimated, etc. and then turn around and cite that nuclear program as a reason for why you need to continue or restart military operations, the American public will conclude you’re full of it.

I have more than one question, but I agree that yours is the overarching one.

We’ve been through a spin cycle of issuing threats and then more often than not backing down from them.

Right. I tend to agree with your perspective more so than the preceding poster’s question about us “signalling” everything.

I think this has more to do with the media and the anti-trump elitists being frustrated that they can’t be sure Trump and republicans are going to lose the house due to high gas prices, and the fact that there has been no active action in Iran lately to remind people, so they feel the need to publish things to try to remind them.

It also serves the dual purpose of pre-framing what could happen after the election, particularly if we lose the house and senate and Trump decides he has only 3 months to finish the Iran job.

Sorry but Trump has not only lost in Iran but his own Administration is in tatters.Any concerted action in Iran after election day will have almost no political, support within the US or the world, has almost no chance of deposing the mullah regime, and will end up strenghening the incoming lunatic, America hating Democrats. If Trump had taken his “concerted action” after the first two weeks of the bombing in conjunction with Israel, the rebellious Kurds of wersten Iran and the urban aggrieved protesters, he had a good chance of deposing the mullah regime and a historic victory. Instead he settled for a political and economic catastophre by backing off. Perhaps if despite his bad knee he had served in Vietnam, he would have learned that committing brave young men to fight and die in an inconclusive war is an abomination that never ends well.

“The media and the anti-trump elitists” didn’t say the following. President Trump did:

“We may do another little Epic Fury, or they’ll agree. If they’re smart, they’ll just say, let’s get down to business. But, you know, I doubt they’ll do that because perhaps they’re not smart. But we’re — we’re — we did a number on them.”

Fort Myers, October 16

So....you argued:
<><>the original memo of understanding with the Iranian regime was a “terrible mistake”
<><>and an insane series of concessions to one of the world’s most duplicitous regimes.
<><>You even got tagged w/ “Trump Derangement Syndrome” for your trouble.

But hold on—this very week, Pres Trump declared “that cease-fire” with Iran was “a waste.”
The US is going for “a short, intense military campaign” re Iran..... but only “after midterms”.

BTW, gas prices are about $4.24 p/g today—better fill up your tank before Election Day.

"We did a little cease-fire, which I never liked very much. I consider it sort of a waste of time but, you know, you like to listen to professionals. But we did a little cease-fire, so we let some ships get in. You know, we want to be nice, but it was just a waste of time, as far as I’m concerned. But, uh, we’re doing a job."

So trump admits that what he's done has been a waste of time.

And will some Short Intense War also be a waste of time?

Anyone stating that the MofUnderstanding was a treaty or an agreement of sorts is an idiot. A MoU is a framework for future negotiations. All complex negotiations have that. I’ve done them in negotiations between businesses.

If either party violates the MoU then negotiations are suspended.

Stating that the attacks on Iran were just another forever war or simply saber rattling is also an idiot. Iran was within months of a nuke tipped ICBM that would have blackmailed most of the EU into surrender. Paris would have done more than burn.
Objecting to that action is the act of a monster. Pi$$ on you.

“Iran was within months of a nuke tipped ICBM”

This is based on...what? Vibes? Repetition by the administration? Your intuition?

This will certainly be a voter turnout flop by announcing you are waiting until people vote for you to do something the voter never wanted in the first place. LOL

You are correct. And he spent all his political capital on it, which turned out to be a loser. He did nothing for affordability, digital assets, and a host of other areas he made promises in. He is responsible for the mess that will occur next week.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.