Israel’s army chief told a private meeting there is no need to strike Iran before Tuesday

The Financial Times reported on Wednesday, citing three anonymous sources, that Netanyahu ordered the IDF in early October to prepare a renewed attack on Iran, that the military was ready to strike on the weekend of 10 October, and that Trump opposed restarting the war before the 3 November US midterms, cancelling the operation. The planned campaign was described as more intense than the one launched in February. Every major Israeli outlet carried it, and the target set shifted in the retelling: Haaretz rendered it as “power plants, nuclear facilities and regime targets,” Ynet added that it was a multi-day bombing campaign, and the Jerusalem Post said it would have hit civilian infrastructure. Separately the same day, the New York Times reported that the US and Israel have drafted plans for a potential three-day campaign against nuclear, energy and military assets, with a small chance Trump could move this month and an equal chance he authorises nothing.

Then Channel 13 published, on Thursday, a private remark by Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir: “We do not see any indications of a need to strike Iran before the election. If we determine that a strike on Iran is necessary, we will carry it out.” Haaretz had set the frame a week earlier, asking on 16 October whether Netanyahu was planning an “October surprise” and writing that he “again reads intelligence to suit himself, but security sources see no urgency to act.” Its 22 October editorial, headlined “Netanyahu Is Playing With Fire. Elections Are No Excuse for War,” said the FT report “should set off all the red flags in Israel’s defense establishment and among the public.” On 19 October Netanyahu had unveiled a security doctrine of preemptive strikes, underground weapons production and buffer zones, with nuclear ranked first among threats.

Assessment: The leak is the event. Zamir’s sentence was said privately and published four days before a vote, which makes its appearance an intervention regardless of who authorised it — the general’s office, someone hostile to the prime minister, or someone who wanted the deterrent message heard in Tehran. The FT and New York Times reports rest entirely on anonymous sourcing and describe plans, not decisions; plans drawn up and shelved are the normal condition of this file. What is confirmed is narrower: the political and military echelons are now publicly describing the same intelligence picture in incompatible terms, which is the condition Haaretz has been warning about since 16 October.