Trump Blocked Netanyahu's Planned Multi-Day Iran Bombing Campaign, FT Reports

WASHINGTON — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare a multi-day bombing campaign against Iran earlier this month, targeting nuclear facilities, power stations and regime-linked sites, but shelved the operation after President Donald Trump refused to back renewed strikes before the November 3 U.S. midterm elections, the Financial Times reported on Wednesday.

Citing three people familiar with the planning, the newspaper reported that Israeli military planners had developed an extensive aerial campaign intended to unfold over several days, with the operation initially scheduled to begin during the weekend of October 10. The targets included Iranian nuclear installations, civilian electricity facilities, energy infrastructure and sites associated with the country's ruling establishment — a scope considerably broader than strikes carried out during the joint U.S.-Israeli operation in February.

The Plan That Never Flew

According to the report, the planned offensive would have marked a major resumption of Israel's military campaign against the Islamic Republic. The people briefed on the matter said the IDF had been ready to execute a bombing run larger in scale than February's Operation Roaring Lion, which had severely damaged Iran's military and nuclear capabilities earlier this year.

Israeli officials also handed their American counterparts an updated target list based on new intelligence, according to one of the sources cited. The revised list included civilian infrastructure that had previously been spared — a detail that suggests the planned campaign was designed as much to cripple the regime's economic foundations as to degrade its nuclear program.

It remains unclear whether the United States was expected to take part directly in the operation, the Financial Times reported. But the report made clear that whatever Washington's role would have been, the decision to call off the strikes was driven by opposition from the White House. The Pentagon declined to comment on the report.

Why Trump Said No

Trump, the people familiar with the discussions said, was unwilling to reignite a major Middle East war in the closing weeks of the American campaign season. On October 8 — just days before the Israeli campaign was reportedly scheduled to begin — the president publicly declared that the United States would not attack Iran before the midterms.

"We are having productive discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "We will not be attacking Iran at any time prior to the Midterm Elections to be held in the United States on November 3rd," he added, while insisting that "IRAN WILL NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!"

The White House has paired that pause with continued economic pressure. A White House spokesperson said this week that Iran is in extremely poor economic and military condition, and said the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports — alongside American efforts to facilitate Gulf oil exports — is succeeding. Washington continues to demand that Tehran curb its nuclear program while a U.S.-led pressure campaign squeezes oil revenues and shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, where mine strikes on commercial tankers have kept global energy markets on edge.

Israel's Mounting Anxiety Over Iran's Nuclear Rebuild

The Financial Times report followed earlier reporting by Axios that Netanyahu had personally pressed Trump on the possibility of renewed strikes, amid mounting Israeli concerns that Iran is working to rebuild its damaged nuclear infrastructure after the February campaign.

That concern has been the driving force behind weeks of escalating Israeli pressure, according to the sources. Netanyahu has argued that each month of delay gives Tehran room to repair facilities, disperse centrifuges and reconstitute the program that the February strikes were designed to set back by years.

One source cited in the report suggested that Israel's preparations may have been partly a negotiating tactic — a show of force meant to pressure Tehran toward concessions at the bargaining table. The same source stressed that the ultimate decision on whether to resume hostilities rested with Trump, not with Jerusalem, an assessment that underscores how thoroughly Israel's military options have become entangled with American electoral politics. For more on the wider regional standoff, follow our Middle East news bureau.

A Week of Secret Moves and Strained Channels

The report landed two days after news emerged that U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had made an unannounced visit to Israel, meeting Netanyahu at Ovda Air Base. Israeli media reported that the main topic of discussion was Iran. Defense Minister Israel Katz attended the meeting, but IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir and other senior military officials were excluded for reasons of confidentiality, according to the reports.

Neither side has said publicly what was decided during the Hegseth visit, which preceded the Financial Times revelations by roughly 48 hours. The timing has raised questions in both capitals about whether the visit was connected to the shelved offensive — or to the diplomatic track Washington says it is still pursuing.

That diplomatic track remains alive, at least in public statements. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said this week that he told Pakistan's army chief there would be no talks with the United States until Iran's demands were met, according to an Iranian readout reported by Reuters. Separately, a 60-day memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran aimed at reducing hostilities remains the formal framework for de-escalation, even as the two sides trade threats. For continuing coverage of diplomacy and conflict, our live coverage page carries the latest developments as they unfold.

What Happens Next: "A Deal or an Attack"

Despite the shelving of the October offensive, the prospect of renewed military action remains very much alive. One source familiar with the discussions told the Financial Times that renewed strikes in the coming weeks were "not an unreasonable scenario," suggesting the Israeli preparations were paused rather than abandoned.

Another source described the increasingly narrow options facing Tehran in stark terms: "There will either be a deal or an attack." The phrasing captured the binary logic now driving American policy — either diplomacy produces an agreement on Iran's nuclear program and on control of the Strait of Hormuz and its shipping lanes, or military pressure resumes.

Two electoral calendars now frame the decision. Israel holds its own elections on October 27, and the United States follows with its midterms on November 3. Multiple sources cited in the reporting suggested that a window for strikes could open after both votes are behind the leaders, when the domestic political costs of a new Middle East war would be lower.

In the meantime, the region waits. Israel's military keeps its updated target lists. Iran keeps rebuilding. And Washington, officially at least, keeps talking — with a calendar on the wall and a fleet in the Gulf.