On Tuesday, seven ships got through the Strait of Hormuz. On Wednesday night, the president told a rally in Texas he doesn't really want a deal. And somewhere in between, US officials say, the Pentagon told Central Command to finish getting ready to go back to war. It's Thursday, October 8, and you're listening to Iran War Daily. Quick bearings if you're new: the US and Israel began striking Iran on February 28, a provisional deal in June fell apart, and Washington now blockades Iran's ports while talks crawl through Qatari and Pakistani mediators. On today's list: strike preparations and a shrug at diplomacy, Hormuz traffic falling off after a tanker is hit off Qatar, Tehran's answer heading back through the mediators, people killed at two Saudi airports, and a congressional count of 81 American aircraft lost or damaged.
Barak Ravid, reporting for Axios:
The directive didn't include a specific date for launching strikes, and President Trump hasn't made any final decisions. But U.S. and Israeli sources say it could happen before the U.S. midterm election and possibly the Israeli elections a week earlier.
Here's the directive itself. According to US officials who spoke to Axios, the Pentagon told Central Command several days ago to wrap up preparations for resuming major combat operations in Iran. Sources say that would mean massive bombing of energy, infrastructure and nuclear targets, most likely with Israel's military taking part. The Atlantic separately reported Wednesday that Trump is weighing strikes before the November 3 midterms. Then the president walks into a rally in San Antonio and says, and I'm quoting, "I think the deal isn't really something that I want to do, but they're willing to offer us anything to stop." Same speech: Witkoff is "doing very well." Pick one. Set the official lines next to that. A Pentagon official told Axios the department's job is "to develop and present military options to the President." A White House official said Trump has every option available at any time, and that things will go "the easy way or the hard way." One Israeli official called the odds of strikes before the election "not high," and said they rise "significantly" after it. Now follow the gas money. The Atlantic, as relayed by World Israel News, quotes a Republican familiar with the discussions saying a strike "would make the president look like he got a win and that gas prices would start going down." Gas is about four thirty-seven a gallon nationally, from under three dollars before the war. Bomb an oil region to bring oil prices down. Bold theory. Tehran is signaling back. Army spokesman Brigadier General Mohammad Akrami-Nia told Fars that if Iran concludes an attack is imminent, it will "definitely" strike first. And the Soufan Center notes the carrier Theodore Roosevelt is on its way, which would put three US carrier groups in the region by the end of October.
Reuters, in a report carried by Al Arabiya English:
The number of vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz fell to the lowest in more than two months after attacks on tankers in the key waterway reached their highest last week since the start of the US-Israeli war with Iran, shipping data showed. Seven commodity vessels passed through the strait on Tuesday, for the lowest figure since July 23, data from analytics firm Kpler showed.
Seven. Before February 28, about 125 large commercial vessels went through every day. Wednesday crept back up to ten, still well short of the twenty-plus on Sunday and Monday. The attacks are the backdrop. Maritime security sources told Reuters last week saw more tanker attacks than any week since the war began. Then on Wednesday, the UK Maritime Trade Operations agency said a tanker was struck by multiple projectiles 51 nautical miles north of Madinat ash Shamal, on Qatar's northern coast, with casualties reported. UKMTO hasn't said who fired or how many were hurt. Now line up the two capitals. Secretary of State Rubio says Iran has "lost complete control" of the strait, and that "there's almost as much oil flowing out now as there was before this conflict began." Also on Wednesday, CBS News reports, a senior Iranian military figure claimed Iran's forces have "full control" and will soon block what Tehran calls illegal routes. They can't both be right, and the tanker crews are the ones running the experiment. Kpler's figures explain how both sides can point to data. Crude crossing the strait fell 27 percent in a week, to at least 10.1 million barrels a day, which is 74 percent of its pre-war level. But exports from the Gulf of Oman coast and the Red Sea rose to more than twice pre-war levels, and that kept total Middle East crude exports at pre-war volume. So the oil is getting out. Less of it is getting out through Hormuz.
Sahin Demir, writing for Anadolu Agency:
“The necessary response to the proposals of the other side will also be provided through the mediators,” Baghaei said, adding that messages between Iran and the US are being exchanged through intermediaries.
So the answer is still on its way. Axios says Qatari mediators are still waiting for Iran's response to a US counterproposal that included nuclear demands. Tehran told us it had Washington's reply back on October 1. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Wednesday that Tehran has clearly set out its "considerations and conditions" for ending the war on all fronts. He was also answering Rubio, who said in Athens that Iran had missed "multiple opportunities" to reach a nuclear agreement. Baghaei's response: "Distorting historical facts cannot erase from public opinion the reality of the United States' repeated breaches of its commitments." The one concrete item is about the water. Baghaei says Iran and Oman have agreed on the geographical coordinates of safe inbound and outbound routes through Hormuz, and will notify the relevant international body "soon." That is Iran's account; Anadolu's report carries no statement from Oman. Meanwhile, NBC News reports the two sides held indirect nuclear talks in New York this month, and that Washington still wants the nuclear file inside any agreement. Approved lanes on one hand, a threat to close everything else on the other. That's not reopening a strait. That's Tehran deciding who gets a ticket.
Kristina Harazim and Enes Abuomer, in Al Jazeera's live coverage:
Saudi civil aviation authorities say Houthi attacks on Abha and King Khalid International airports have killed three civilians, including two women, and injured 36 others.
Yesterday we told you about missiles aimed at Aden's runway. Now people are dead at airports inside Saudi Arabia. Per the civil aviation authority, two were killed and 28 hurt at Abha, about 40 miles north of the Yemen border, and one killed and eight hurt at King Khalid in Riyadh, hundreds of miles inland. The authority didn't say which attack came Tuesday and which came Wednesday. And it may not be over. AFP reports the Houthis claimed on Thursday that a ballistic missile struck King Khalid again, their third claimed attack on that airport this week. Military spokesman Yahya Saree warned international airlines, "for the last time," against flying through Saudi airspace. For now, that newest strike is the Houthis' claim. On the ground, Saudi-backed Yemeni forces claim advances in the mountain belt of western Taiz overlooking the coast, part of what they call the Dawn of Yemen operation. The UN says the fighting has displaced more than 200,000 people inside Yemen. There's a Washington angle. The Soufan Center reports Saudi leaders have asked Trump to strike the Houthis. He's refused so far, though US officials say he could change his mind. Which brings back yesterday's question about the Mecca pact. Three people dead at Saudi airports is exactly the scenario it was built for. Let's see Turkey and Pakistan show up.
Michael Scanlon, writing in Military Times on the Congressional Research Service's updated count:
The Oct. 5 revision adds jets damaged in a September Iranian strike on a base in Jordan, helicopter losses drawn from a Pentagon inspector general report and a sharply higher count of lost Reaper drones.
The headline number: 81 US military aircraft lost or damaged since February 28. In May, the same researchers counted 42. Nearly double. CRS is careful about what that figure means. It's not 81 destroyed. In its words, "some damaged aircraft may have been returned to active service." It's built from public information, news reports and official statements. Most of the increase is drones. It now counts 45 MQ-9 Reapers lost, citing three US officials in August. Here's what should worry the planners. Fifteen aircraft on that list were damaged sitting on the ground, at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia and Muwaffaq Salti in Jordan. That includes five KC-135 tankers and an E-3 Sentry. The Air Force had only 16 E-3s before the war. And nobody's building new ones. The human cost is on the list too. A KC-135 went down in western Iraq on March 12, killing all six crew; Military Times notes that loss was not the result of hostile or friendly fire. On money, the Congressional Budget Office puts the war's Pentagon cost at about 38 billion dollars through August 1. The White House has asked for 87.6 billion dollars in emergency funding. Congress hasn't approved it. Good numbers to keep in mind the same week Central Command is told to get ready for round two.
A question for you. If strikes do resume, what do you want us tracking first: oil and shipping, troop movements, or what the mediators are saying? Tell us at iranwardaily at lantern podcasts dot com.
Tomorrow we'll be watching for whether Iran's answer actually reaches the mediators, and whether Hormuz traffic climbs back past ten ships a day. And whether anyone in Washington attaches a date to that Pentagon directive. Thanks for spending part of your Thursday with Iran War Daily, a Lantern Podcast. We're back tomorrow.