The New York Times, on Iran, 25 October 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

A New Level of Threat and Fear Risks Pushing the U.S. and Iran Back to Full War

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.3 findings

Inside the Trump administration, officials are expressing fears that Iran is in the “advanced stages” of planning attacks against U.S. officials. More than 6,000 miles away, , a final push to force Iran to surrender to U.S. demands. The conflict in the Middle East has entered a new phase in which a maelstrom of factors, from the political calendars in the United States and Israel to the potential for all sides to be seeking pretexts for action, are creating heightened levels of tension and risk.

This is how countries can escalate into full-scale war, several diplomats and outside experts noted. If the U.S. intelligence disclosed this week is right that Iran has credible plans to attack Americans at home and abroad, one senior European official said — “and it probably is,” the official added — one gunshot that appears aimed at a U.S. official could touch off a conflagration. So could a stray explosion near a bunker sheltering Iranian leaders , who already survived in the opening hours of the war on Feb. 28.

The fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and President Trump are facing critical elections that could dramatically affect the balance of power in their countries feeds into the complex set of calculations that all sides are making. Even if he is defeated on Tuesday, Mr. Netanyahu could decide to launch one last strike that he may believe his successor would hesitate to execute. Similarly, Mr. Trump, who knows how unpopular the war is even among his strongest supporters, may want to show that at least when it comes to his powers as commander in chief, his authority is undiminished.

And, as in other moments of global peril — the Cuban Missile Crisis and the decision to invade in Iraq, as examples — partial or faulty intelligence, or just a failure to understand the adversary’s true motives, can carry deadly consequences. Iraq poses another cautionary tale, when selective intelligence can be used as an actual pretext for military action. U.S. officials say they are focused on elements of the most recent intelligence suggesting that the Iranians may seek to kill U.S. ambassadors in the Middle East and American officials on U.S. soil — .

But history suggests Iran’s desires often outstrip its capabilities. We are having trouble retrieving the article content. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in . Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

Read the original article on nytimes.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (3)

The Times presents the coming US and Israeli attack as something Iranians "appear convinced" of, though its own reporting days earlier said the two militaries had drawn up specific strike plans. It writes the February killing of Iran's leaders as "deaths in a decapitation strike" with no one named as having carried it out. It states US intelligence claims about Iran's Unit 840 and its "hit men" in its own voice, with no source attached.

  1. Hides who did it

    Serious

    “their predecessors’ deaths in a decapitation strike”

    Why this matters
    The words "deaths in a decapitation strike" record that Iran's previous leaders died, but no one in the sentence carries out the strike. "Deaths" also stands in for a killing.
    The impression it gives
    A reader learns that Iran's former leaders died in a strike at the start of the war, but is not told who struck them or that they were killed on purpose.
    The context
    This outlet's own earlier reporting names the actors: the war's first phase was intense US and Israeli strikes from February. A fair line would say a US-Israeli strike killed Iran's leaders.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    So could a stray explosion near a bunker sheltering Iran's current leaders, whose predecessors were killed in a US-Israeli decapitation strike in the opening hours of the war on Feb. 28.

  2. Drops what it reported before

    Minor

    “the Iranians appear convinced that Israel and the United States are preparing to unleash their third major attack in 16 months”

    Why this matters
    The words "appear convinced" turn a coming US-Israeli attack into an Iranian belief. In S1 the US side's fears rest on intelligence. Here the Iranian side is only convinced.
    The impression it gives
    A reader comes away thinking the threat of a new US-Israeli attack exists mainly in Iranian minds, set against hard US intelligence about Iran.
    The context
    Four days earlier the Times reported, citing US officials, that the US and Israeli militaries had drawn up specific plans for renewed strikes on Iran. It also reported that Hegseth met Netanyahu in Israel to discuss them. The article leaves this out.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  3. States one side's claim as fact

    Minor

    “a longtime ambition of Iran’s elite Unit 840 , which has carried out kidnappings and assassinations around the globe”

    Why this matters
    The sentence opens with what US officials say, then switches to the Times's own voice. In that voice it states as fact that Unit 840 has long wanted to kill US officials and has carried out kidnappings and assassinations worldwide.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes the unit's murderous ambition and its record of killings as established fact checked by the Times.
    The context
    The article names no source for these claims beyond the US officials framing the intelligence. It gives no Iranian response. They are one party's intelligence claims, written as the outlet's own fact.

    Show it in the article

    “It has at times hired hapless hit men who have been arrested before they could do harm.”

    Why this matters
    This sentence states in the outlet's voice, with no source or case named, that Iran has hired hit men.
    The impression it gives
    A reader treats Iranian state use of hired assassins as a settled pattern the Times itself vouches for.
    The context
    The article attaches no source, case or court finding to this claim. It offers no Iranian account.

    Show it in the article

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The New York Times

Everything we scored from The New York Times