As the United States and Iran exchanged strikes this week, a critical political deadline loomed over the escalating hostilities.
The US midterm elections on November 3 could prove decisive for the war, as senior advisers to President Donald Trump work to prevent the conflict from spiraling into all-out war before the polls, when Republicans will be defending narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress.
Why Do the Midterms Matter for Trump?
Washington is shifting its focus from military force to economic pressure. In August, the Trump administration announced its so-called “Economic D-Day”, imposing sanctions on 60 entities accused of facilitating oil revenues for trade with Iran and threatening secondary sanctions against other nations doing business with Tehran.
Simultaneously, the US naval blockade of Iranian ports around the Strait of Hormuz continues to pressure Tehran’s oil exports.
Vice President JD Vance has sought to minimize the war, which the US and Israel launched with attacks on Iran on February 28, as rising fuel prices and growing public opposition threaten to become political liabilities for Republicans ahead of the vote.
However, the Trump administration faces clear limits to its restraint, with US forces continuing to strike Iran in recent days and leaders insisting that further military action remains an option. Vance stated this week that “everything that could happen is on the table,” including economic, military, diplomatic, and covert pressure.
This leaves the coming two months as a particularly precarious period to navigate. Washington aims to avoid an all-out war while increasing economic pressure, but Iran has its own calculations and could respond militarily, potentially forcing the US into an escalation it would rather avoid before Americans go to the polls.
Here is an overview of the key dynamics.
The midterms will determine whether the Republican Party can retain its narrow control of Congress. If the war escalates again beforehand, it could convince more voters to oppose the Trump administration.
Keeping the fighting contained until November may help prevent an already deeply unpopular war from dominating the political agenda.
A late-August Reuters/Ipsos poll indicated that only 31 percent of Americans support the war, compared with 63 percent who oppose it. Trump’s approval rating has also declined since the outbreak of hostilities, falling from 40 percent to 33 percent, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling.
Observers note that the Trump administration did not anticipate reaching this point.
In early March, Trump insisted the war would last for “four or five weeks”. Instead, the conflict has dragged on, and unexpected consequences—including Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which caused energy prices to spike—have made it even more unpopular with US households.
US diesel prices hit a record high on Thursday, surpassing the previous peak recorded in 2022, as higher crude oil prices and refining bottlenecks drove up the cost of a fuel that underpins much of the US economy.
This is particularly damaging for a president who campaigned partly on a promise to dramatically reduce energy costs—as well as a pledge not to get involved in “unnecessary” wars.
The fallout from the war extends beyond the petrol pump. Sustained increases in fuel and transport costs feed into the price of groceries, manufactured goods, and other everyday purchases—potentially worsening inflation at a time when Democrats are making the cost of living a defining issue for the midterm campaign.
A Politico poll conducted in August suggested that 61 percent of Americans believe the Iran war had made life more expensive for their families, four percentage points higher than a month earlier.
Can Trump Keep the War Contained Until November?
There are signs that his administration is actively pursuing this goal.
In recent weeks, Washington has intensified its campaign to economically isolate Iran, threatening severe sanctions against countries that continue trading with it while maintaining military pressure around the Strait of Hormuz.
With strikes on Iran earlier this week, Trump has also signaled his willingness to engage in sporadic attacks while attempting to prevent the war from escalating back into all-out conflict.
Senior administration officials have simultaneously sought to downplay the scale of the military confrontation. When asked at a White House briefing whether the Iran war would be resolved before the midterm elections, Vice President JD Vance stated he “wouldn’t call it a war” and claimed there was “no active shooting right now”.
Asked when Iran would stop attacking commercial shipping, Vance said: “You would have to ask the Iranians.” He also asserted the conflict was having “less effect day by day” on global energy markets. The US claims it is escorting about 30 ships per night through the Strait of Hormuz—and officials stated that some 18 million barrels of oil were transported through on Tuesday this week. However, shipping data does not appear to fully support this claim.
Analysts have warned that trying to maintain a strategy of “no war, no peace” with sporadic attacks is highly risky. Negar Mortazavi, senior fellow at the Washington, DC-based Center for International Policy, told Al Jazeera this week: “Tehran will not capitulate under [economic] pressure. Both sides may believe they can control the escalation, but every new exchange increases the risk of a wider regional conflict.”
One of the US attacks this week is also believed to have struck a civilian home where a wedding was taking place in Kuhestak, southern Iran, killing at least four people, including children, and wounding dozens.
Furthermore, The Washington Post reported on Sunday that senior Army, Navy, and Air Force leaders have warned Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth in a written assessment that continuing the war at its current pace is unsustainable and risks undermining US military readiness in other parts of the world.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the US-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Al Jazeera that this week’s attacks point to a US strategy that remains deeply unsettled.
“I think it’s quite likely that what we’re seeing right now is just complete military, strategic disarray on the American position in which the positions, the actions, the tactics, and the strategies keep on getting changed,” Parsi said.
He noted that Washington had imposed sweeping economic sanctions on Iran in an apparent attempt to make further military intervention unnecessary. “Seven days later, the US is back into bombing Iran.”
The US appears to be “jumping from one position to the other”, he added.
What Are Iran’s Calculations?
While the most recent attacks between the US and Iran have been less intense than the heavy exchanges seen in the early weeks of the war and during the two flare-ups in July, the risk of escalation remains high. And it may be in Iran’s interest for that to happen sooner rather than later.
Iran has excelled at using asymmetric warfare against an enemy with considerable military might—employing cheap, mass-produced drones to exhaust US supplies of very expensive defensive systems, and launching attacks on US allies around the Gulf, sowing disharmony.
In particular, Tehran has demonstrated that it can severely disrupt maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, causing global economic consequences.
Continued Iranian attacks on US or regional military assets, shipping, or energy infrastructure would pressure Washington to retaliate more strongly than via the few attacks it has carried out this week, creating the possibility of an escalatory cycle that could return the two countries to a much wider war regardless of the White House’s electoral calculations.
Furthermore, Washington’s economic strategy to isolate Tehran—an attempt to move away from open warfare—may in fact create a greater Iranian incentive to retaliate.
Parsi told Al Jazeera that Iranian officials appear to believe Trump ultimately intends to restart the war on a larger scale but is merely waiting until after the midterms.
This creates a potentially dangerous calculation for Tehran, where it is better to escalate now—while Trump is at his most politically vulnerable. “The reaction of the Iranians to that might be to actually trigger the war themselves early right before the midterm elections in order to maximize the pain that will impose on the US president,” Parsi said.
What Happens After November?
Reuters reported on Wednesday that senior White House officials are already considering whether to intensify military operations against Iran after the November 3 vote, although no decision has been made on returning to full-scale conflict.
A Republican victory in the midterms could give Trump greater political room for this option, particularly if the administration interprets the result as approval—or at least a lack of sufficient disapproval—for the war despite its economic consequences for voters.
A Republican defeat presents a more complicated picture, however. On the one hand, losing one or both chambers of Congress will constrain the administration, as Congress controls government funding. Democratic control of the House or Senate would also give Trump’s opponents greater scope to hold hearings, investigate the US conduct of the war, and challenge requests for additional military spending.
Conversely, with Trump no longer facing a congressional election, he may feel less pressure to contain the war, experts fear.
Parsi warned that an electoral defeat could therefore have the opposite effect to what Tehran might expect.
“I’m not so sure that it’s going to pay off necessarily for the Iranians because a Trump that is humiliated at the elections, who is faced with a Democratic [majority] House [of Representatives] and potentially a Democratic Senate, may also become a much more desperate and reckless president,” he said.
