Iran on the Scales of US Elections: How Did Tehran Change Trump's Calculations?

Trump's Iran policy, which began with promises of rapidly achieving its goals, has become a factor influencing Washington's electoral calculations amid ongoing crisis, rising energy costs, and divisions within the Republican camp.

Ambassador Arjan of the International Group: Donald Trump made a miscalculation in confronting Iran from the very beginning and started the war with a set of maximum goals that sought to destroy missile power, prevent the reconstruction of Iran's nuclear program, and even bring about political changes in Tehran.

However, the passage of months since the beginning of the tension and conflict, not only did not lead to the realization of these alleged goals announced by Trump, but it has once again put Washington in front of the same problem that was supposed to be solved by military and economic pressure, and the question is, in what ways does America struggle to force Iran to accept America's demands?

In such circumstances, the approach of the American mid-term elections on November 3, 2026 (Aban 12, 1405), has turned the Iranian case from a purely external crisis into a problem with direct domestic consequences. The war, which was supposed to show the power of the Trump administration and prove the effectiveness of the "peace from the position of power" approach, has now been accompanied by an increase in energy prices, pressure on the cost of living, and dissatisfaction of part of the public opinion; In a recent survey, only 28% of Americans approved of Trump's actions towards Iran, and 65% considered his government's policies to be effective in continuing the high cost of living.

From this point of view, Iran has become one of the important variables of Trump's foreign policy on the eve of the elections; Not just because its case remains unresolved for the White House, but because the gap between Trump's stated goals and the results achieved is now linked to the domestic costs of his policies.

Therefore, the increase in fuel prices and the pressure on livelihoods on the one hand and the disagreement among Republicans about the continuation of the war and its political costs on the other hand, have turned the Iran case into a factor that can affect the calculations of the Trump administration and the Republican Party on the eve of the elections.

How did Iran become the issue of American livelihood?

At the beginning of the military attack against Iran, Trump tried to present it as a limited and necessary measure to ensure the security of the United States, but the prolongation of the conflict and the continuation of the disruption in the energy market transferred the cost of this policy to the daily lives of Americans.

The average price of gasoline in the United States is now about $4.37 and the price of diesel is about $6.32 per gallon, while the price of gasoline in the same period last year was about $3.13 and diesel was about $3.68; In this way, compared to last year, the price of gasoline has increased by about 39% and the price of diesel by about 72%; An increase that has put pressure on the cost of transportation, agriculture and production.

Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz has become one of the main links for transferring the consequences of the Iranian crisis to the American economy. Although the flow of oil from this route has continued to a very small extent at times, the costs of insurance, transportation and disruption in refining have kept the price of oil products high. Conflicts around the Strait of Hormuz have also affected the price of crude oil and thus the price of fuel in the United States, with increasing concern about the security of oil supply.

This situation has become more important for Trump because the price of fuel is one of the most tangible indicators that the American voter sees the effect of foreign policy directly in his life. These high levels of fuel prices are putting additional cost pressures on America's transportation, agriculture and supply chains.

The economic pressure has also been reflected at the state level, and about one-third of American states have resorted to measures such as suspending or temporarily reducing gasoline and diesel taxes to reduce the pressure caused by high fuel prices. These measures have been taken in a situation where the cost of living is still one of the main concerns of voters on the eve of the mid-term elections, and the state officials have linked the increase in fuel prices to the consequences of the Iran war.

As a result, the Iran issue has reached a point for Trump that makes the gap between his declared goals and the practical results of his policy more tangible for the American voter. The war, which was supposed to end with the realization of Washington's security goals, is now on the eve of the mid-term elections accompanied by an increase in fuel prices, pressure on transportation and agriculture, and increased concern about the cost of living, and this link between foreign policy and livelihood has turned the Iran case from an issue far from everyday life into one of the internal issues of the Trump administration.

The split in Trump's election coalition with aggression against Iran

The most important political consequence of the continuation of tension with Iran for Trump is not only the reduction of public satisfaction with the government's performance, but also the creation of a gap between the foreign policy of the White House and the electoral needs of the Republicans, who must answer in their constituencies about the consequences of this policy.

As we are on the threshold of mid-term congressional elections, a number of Republican candidates have tried to separate their position from the continuation of the war and emphasize its quick end. The Associated Press reported that in the early months of the war, Republicans were largely supportive of Trump's move, but as the conflict has dragged on and the economic costs have risen, concern has grown among some in the party.

This change of position has not been limited to traditional Trump critics and has reached some figures who need the support of Trump's base to keep the Republican seats. Until September 25, 2026 (3 Mehr 1405), at least 17 Republican representatives or candidates had announced in the election contests that they wanted the end of the war or the limitation of the war powers of the president. Among them, Mike Rogers in Michigan and Ashley Hinson in Iowa have emphasized a quick end to the war, and others have linked rising energy prices directly to prolonging the conflict.

The importance of this process increases when the dispute over Iran has reached the level of congressional powers from the level of election comments. On September 24, 2026 (October 2, 1405), the US Senate rejected a resolution to stop Trump's aggressive attacks against Iran by a vote of 49 to 50, but four Republican senators voted for this plan along with Democrats.

The vote showed that even as a majority of Republicans continue to support the administration against congressional efforts to limit war powers, the party's initial consensus on how to proceed with the confrontation with Iran is no longer as unified.

From a strategic point of view, the issue becomes more complicated for Trump since he cannot simply choose between continuing the war and ending it because both options will create a different political outcome for him. The continuation of the conflict puts pressure on the promise of a quick end to the war and the avoidance of long conflicts, and also perpetuates its economic costs; On the other hand, ending the war without achieving a result that can be presented as the realization of Washington's initial goals, can highlight the question of what exactly has the extensive military operation achieved for the United States?

For this reason, the Iran case for Trump has become an issue beyond the choice between war and negotiation, and has now become a test of his ability to turn a costly confrontation into a political outcome.

From this point of view, Iran has become a variable that puts pressure on several layers of Trump's policy at the same time; Because the confrontation with Iran not only has not yet reached a result that can show that all of Washington's initial declared goals have been achieved, but its economic consequences have been transferred to the price of fuel and the cost of living, and it has forced some of the Republican candidates to distance themselves from the continuation of the war.

Therefore, on the eve of the mid-term elections, the Iran case is no longer just a foreign policy issue for Trump, and has become a test to measure the distance between foreign policy promises, domestic expenses, and the ability of the Republican Party to maintain its electoral integrity.