Why Is the Chance of a US Attack on Iran Lower Before the Congressional Elections?

Due to concerns over electoral costs, the United States prefers to postpone its military adventures until after the midterm elections, unless the action can be carried out at minimal cost.

According to ambassador Arjan; The simultaneity of security crises, economic pressures and diplomatic movements have made the regional equation more complicated, in a situation where Washington's priorities have changed, the pressure on Tehran has intensified, and the uncertainty about the path of negotiations has made the prospect of Iran-US relations uncertain. In the meantime, the competition of regional and extra-regional powers and the role of actors such as Russia have affected the current crisis management process and may become a platform for crisis escalation. In a situation where the security equations of the Middle East have changed and the region is involved in the escalation of the crisis, a group of observers claim that the change in Washington's priorities from the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to the nuclear issue and the intensification of economic pressures, along with the election calculations of America and Israel, have made Tehran's and Washington's diplomacy prospects uncertain. At the same time, the alleged deal between Washington and Moscow on the export of Russian diesel also indicates the position of the Iran case in the calculations of the American foreign policy and has led to speculations about Russia's role in getting out of the prevailing crisis. In this regard, Javad Hirannia, a university professor and researcher of international relations, conducted a discussion to examine the dimensions of the prevailing developments and upcoming scenarios, the text of which is as follows:

Changing America's agenda in negotiations

In response to a question about the deep gaps governing the negotiations between Tehran and Washington, Javad Hirannia, an international relations researcher, said: After the 40-day war, the United States came to the conclusion that it needs measures to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and prevent the increase in oil and energy prices. It was in this framework that the Islamabad Memorandum was formed. In the first phase of this memorandum, the main issue was the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz; A problem that affected energy prices as well as the supply and continuity of the supply chain of goods and products related to energy. At that time, the Americans felt that reopening the Strait of Hormuz was necessary to reverse the upward trend in oil and energy prices. According to Hirania, but after the violation of the Islamabad Memorandum, the option of naval blockade was pursued more seriously by America. Based on this and considering the pressure that the naval blockade brought on Iran's economy and its effects are also evident in the form of economic turmoil, the Americans came to the conclusion that the issue of reopening the Strait of Hormuz no longer has the status and prestige it had before the Islamabad Memorandum. For this reason, America's current emphasis is more on the nuclear issue than in the past. This is while talks about the nuclear case will be held in the next stage and within the framework of the 60-day negotiations in the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding. However, now the Americans are putting more emphasis on the nuclear issue, because their assessment is that by relying on the naval blockade and maintaining this leverage in nuclear negotiations, they can get concessions from Iran. This expert on international affairs further noted about the prospects of diplomacy at the current stage: Following the recent statements of American officials, including J.D. Vance, the vice president of the United States, as well as the words of Donald Trump, it seems that we are witnessing the adjustment of Washington's positions towards Tehran regarding the nuclear program, especially the enrichment issue. In the statements raised, the main issue is not necessarily zero enrichment, but the goal may be to reduce the level of enrichment by Iran. If this stance is true, it can pave the way for diplomacy and put a positive perspective on the negotiations. However, the timing of such positions does not seem to indicate America's seriousness in reaching a nuclear agreement based on which Iran's right to enrichment is recognized. At least based on what is going on in the field and the interpretation that the Americans themselves give of the situation, the agreement cannot be considered very likely. According to Hirania, it seems that the main emphasis of the US is on creating a kind of peace in the region, at least until the mid-term elections of the Congress, rather than on immediately reaching a nuclear agreement by accepting Iran's right to enrich. It is also possible that the Americans have an estimate of the possibility of Iran's preemptive action and want to put Iran in a position to be pressured by creating such an environment. In other words, the goal may be that if views are raised inside Iran about the necessity of a preemptive attack, these views are not very likely and the possibility of pursuing such an approach will decrease.

Two different views on the war with Iran

In response to another question about the impact of the American and Israeli elections on the equation process between Tehran and Washington, Hiranya explained: Trump had previously said in statements that whether he is a successful or unsuccessful president, he will lose in the mid-term congressional elections. What he meant by raising this issue was that his policies towards Iran will be pursued independently of the mid-term elections and will not be affected by these elections. However, there have been reports that Trump's Republicans and allies have pressured him and warned about the negative consequences of his policies towards Iran. According to this international relations researcher, however, it does not seem necessary to give too much weight to the congressional midterm elections. After all, Trump is a person who cares more about his relatives than his party members. Unlike previous Republican presidents, he has not shown traditional and conventional party behavior.

All in all, it seems likely that America's desire is to postpone any military adventure until after the mid-term congressional elections; Unless this adventure is not expensive. But the main problem is that it is not easy to estimate Iran's reaction, which may regionalize the war.

Hiranya continued to emphasize: But the issue may be different for Benjamin Netanyahu. By raising the issue of the Flydubai flight and his alleged attempt to attribute it to Iran, Netanyahu seeks to maintain the existing security environment so that he can present himself as the only savior of Israel against Iran's threats. The reception of the passengers of this plane can also be evaluated in the same framework; An action that can help strengthen this image in the minds of Israelis that Netanyahu is the only prime minister who is able to provide Israel's security in the future against what he calls the existential threat of Iran. From this point of view, it seems that Netanyahu benefits from the war more than America. According to this university professor, in this context, reports have also been published that the US asked Israel to carry out an attack on its own responsibility. It seems that such reports are not far from reality, because America can use a war whose political consequences are not directly directed at Washington, as a pressure lever against Iran and convince Tehran to accept its demands.

Hirannia went on to say: However, everything is not as clear and predictable as it seems on paper. The start of the war may be accompanied by a strong reaction from Iran, and Israel, if it enters the conflict directly, will face a heavy response, or even Iran will not limit the war to Israel and expand the war horizontally (regional expansion of the war) and vertically (change in the red lines in the attacked targets). Such a situation can become a weak point for Netanyahu and bring significant political, military and security costs to him.

Washington's new strategy to intensify economic pressure against Iran

In response to another question about the possible results of intensifying pressure from Washington by including countries such as Turkey and Pakistan, Hirannia said: The sanctions imposed by the Trump administration against Iran are actually designed to close all the loopholes through which Iran trades and exchanges goods. The US Treasury also emphasizes the same issue. The goal is that the scope of pressure is not limited to governments and countries, but also includes the private sector of these countries, and companies and institutions active in the trade chain with Iran, from banks and insurance companies to transport companies and various parts of this chain inside Iran, are under pressure.

According to Hirania, the logic of secondary US sanctions is to discourage not only governments, but also private companies from doing business with Iran. In this way, companies that intend to do business with Iran face the risk that if they cooperate with Iran, they themselves will be subject to US sanctions; Especially in a situation where Iran's railways, banks, financial institutions and insurance companies are also on the list of sanctions. Therefore, America's whole effort is to increase the risk of doing business with Iran, so that even without the need to completely block the trade routes, companies and economic actors will refuse to cooperate with Iran due to possible costs and risks. In the meantime, it seems that countries such as Turkey and Pakistan, which act as Iran's economic airways in the current situation, are also greatly affected by American pressures and are less willing to accept commercial risks resulting from cooperation with Iran.

According to this international relations researcher, of course, in such a situation, it is usually not possible to expect that trade with Iran will be completely stopped, but it seems that the Americans are serious in applying these pressures and are following the details of Iran's trade routes and economic exchanges more carefully. Therefore, it is unlikely that countries like Turkey and Pakistan will be able to ignore America's secondary sanctions in this regard, without facing heavy consequences and serious pressure from Washington.

A deal with Putin at the cost of distancing himself from Ukraine

In response to another question about the possible behind-the-scenes agreement between Trump and Putin regarding the large-scale export of diesel fuel by Russia, this university professor said: The agreement that Trump made with Vladimir Putin regarding the export of Russian diesel fuel was actually a decision that was made after the US consultations with the President of Ukraine and following the failure of negotiations between the representatives of the parties. During these negotiations, the American representatives asked Ukraine not to target the sectors related to Russian energy reserves and oil production facilities. On the other hand, Ukraine also demanded that Russia stop its attacks on the infrastructure of the Ukrainian electricity industry. According to reports, these negotiations did not come to a conclusion and the American representatives warned Ukraine that Washington will enter into a deal with Russia if the negotiations fail. Finally, the United States issued such a license for the export of Russian diesel. According to Hirania, at the present time, this action cannot be very beneficial to Iran, because Tehran is trying to use the increase in energy prices as a leverage against America and the Trump administration. However, it should also be noted that the increase in the price of diesel in America was also influenced by Ukraine's attacks on Russia's energy infrastructure; A factor that may have become more prominent in the current situation compared to the issue of the Strait of Hormuz. However, it seems that this action at least shows that the war with Iran and maintaining the lever of maritime pressure in the Strait of Hormuz is more important for America than pursuing a common goal with European countries regarding the war in Ukraine. This decision shows that Washington is in no way willing to sacrifice the maritime blockade issue, the Iran case and the current war to considerations related to Ukraine, to the extent that it is even willing to enter into a deal with Putin over the Ukraine war, but at the same time continue its path towards Iran. There are also published reports that the US, following the failure of the agreement with Ukraine, was willing to limit the sending of part of the information to the Zelenskyi government. If these reports are true, this issue itself shows that the issue of Iran is of great importance in Washington's current calculations and that America is willing to reconsider its other relations and foreign policy priorities in order to advance its goals in this case.