How the US midterms factor into Donald Trump's plans for the Iran war

The US Republican Party is entering the midterm elections with Donald Trump's administration seemingly unable to either win or diplomatically resolve the Iran war. If the Republicans lose control of the US Congress, the administration will have to navigate an entirely different political landscape for the rest of Trump's second term, but the course of the war is not decided just in Washington — or in Tehran.

Seeking to identify key factors that could tip the balance towards war or peace in Iran, DW spoke with Omid Memarian of DAWN, a Washington-based think tank focused on reforming the US's Middle East policy; the Finland-based political scientist Leila Morovati; and Babak Rezaeedaryakenari, a professor of international relations at Leiden University in the Netherlands.

1. US midterms: Is Trump set for more scrutiny?

A Democratic victory would push Trump to focus more on domestic issues and would likely expose the financial costs of the war in the US Congress, Memarian told DW. However, Trump could continue limited strikes on Iran without formally declaring war.

Memarian said Trump would seek a way out that "saves face" after Tuesday's election.

With Trump, Memarian said, Iran is engaged in a "big gamble with someone who does not behave like a conventional politician." This increases the risk of renewed attacks.

How serious are Iran's new threats of retaliation?

Rezaeedaryakenari made a similar point: "The president has broad authority and freedom of action, especially in foreign policy and the conduct of military operations. A Republican defeat, even with increased pressure from Congress, doesn't necessarily stop new attacks."

2. Deadlock in Israel puts pressure on Netanyahu

Israel's October 27 election ended in deadlock. Neither the coalition around incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, nor the camp supporting former IDF chief Gadi Eisenkot managed to secure an outright majority.

Memarian said the political uncertainty could push Netanyahu to act on major decisions while he still wields power — making the transition period the "most fragile and dangerous" for renewed escalation.

No clear winner emerges in Israel's election

A change of government in Israel would not fundamentally alter Israel's Iran policy, Memarian said. Netanyahu's main rival, former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, "may be more deferential to America" and coordinate more closely with Washington. But ties with Trump are personal, and Eisenkot "certainly won't be like Netanyahu, who could sell any plan or scenario to Trump."

Rezaeedaryakenari said Israel's security concerns about Iran "are not limited to Netanyahu himself." A new government could change the timing of a confrontation and coordination with Washington, but the security establishment and ruling coalition would also shape the risk of an attack, he said.

3. Nuclear impasse: 'The ladder of tension'

Iran's nuclear program remains the biggest open issue between the governments, with the US rejecting the Iranian narrative that the program is meant only for civilian use.

But the two sides are also at odds on how the talks themselves should be set up, Memarian said.

"The US wants negotiations to start not only with a focus on Iran's nuclear program, but with concessions right at the outset," he said.

Iran seeks the lifting of sanctions and the release of frozen assets before nuclear talks begin. If the sides don't move closer, Memarian warns, the odds of a renewed war rise.

Until the sides agree on an agenda, Memarian said, they are likely to keep "climbing the ladder of tension."

Morovati, a Finland-based political analyst, said the nuclear program was "the crux" of the standoff. Iran's government sees it as a survival guarantee and bargaining chip, she said. In turn, Washington fears that a nuclear Iran would upend its security calculations and long-term strategy for the Middle East and beyond, which is why it insists on putting the issue on the table first.

4. Strait of Hormuz: Is Iran's leverage also a risk factor?

Before the United States and Israel launched the war in late February, about 20% of the world's oil passed through the Strait of Hormuz.  Iran has since drastically cut on the energy exports through the naval chokepoint, using at as leverage on US and Israel.

But, Memarian said, Iran's restrictions in the strait won't trigger escalation on their own.

Should US officials decide that a broader attack is needed to change Iran's calculations, any incident could serve as a pretext, Memarian said. If Washington considers the risks too high, it may opt for an economic blockade while keeping negotiations on the table. In that scenario, "even occasional tensions in the Strait of Hormuz won't pull America into war," according to the US-based analyst.

5. The Houthis in Yemen: Iran's allies, not subordinates

The Houthi rebels in Yemen have also been targeting energy exports on the Red Sea — including attacks on Saudi cities and infrastructure. But Memarian notes the Yemeni rebels' roots and struggle are "entirely domestic and organic" despite their ideological closeness to Tehran.

Memarian said the Houthis made "pragmatic calculations" and their actions did not necessarily translate into an escalation between Iran and the United States.

Still, the United States could use the rebels' action as a pretext to strike Iran again.

More fighting between Yemen's Houthis, Saudi Arabia

Rezaeedaryakenari offered a slightly different assessment. Houthi attacks on shipping and on countries in the region, he says, "can both widen the war and accelerate coalition-building against the Islamic Republic." Countries that don't want war with Tehran "may turn to closer military cooperation to protect their trade and security." That doesn't necessarily mean entering the war directly, he adds, "but it could narrow the Islamic Republic's room for maneuver."

6. Regional mediators: Four countries with a lot at stake

With direct talks between the governments of Iran and the United States stalled, the world turned its attention to Qatar, Oman, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. While each nation plays a different role in the crisis, they all have a direct stake in ending the war.

"They are close to the US, but also want to maintain ties with Iran and build regional alliances to prevent future conflicts," Memarian said.

Morovati said the failure of the United States to support its Arab allies during the war could eventually push them to reconsider their policies and turn to the US's rivals.

7. What will Trump administration do after the election?

During the campaign, Trump said he expected a deal with Iran soon after the midterm elections. Meanwhile, the Reuters news agency cited three senior Iranian officials and an additional source as saying that Tehran has deliberately prolonged talks to weaken Trump politically.

Memarian said Iran's leaders believed that a Republican defeat would increase pressure on Trump to end the war. But Trump will remain the key foreign policy decision-maker, and congressional pressure is unlikely to play a deciding role.

He said the present moment offers the "best opportunity" to end the standoff before Trump leaves office in January 2029.

"Iran's leaders need to think about their endgame," Memarian said, warning that Trump could launch a massive attack, inflict serious damage and then declare victory.

Iran conflict: Could a new phase of the war be imminent?

Rezaeedaryakenari said "escalatory factors" would have the upper hand in the coming months — and the likelihood of a military escalation is high.

Iran's government can only avert a new round of war with a fundamental policy shift and concessions that the country's leaders would consider close to surrender. However, he said, such a retreat would also threaten the regime's survival by weakening its ideological justification and eroding support.

8. Economic toll: Warring parties not at breaking point

High oil prices, shipping risks and economic strain are putting pressure on all sides as the war enters its ninth month. Could that push Tehran, Washington and regional capitals toward compromise?

"The economy is the Achilles' heel of every party to this war," Morovati said, "and that holds even for countries beyond the region."

Energy prices as a source of pressure on the US government, Morovati said.

 "We've seen that energy supply and the expectations of the American public have been influential," Morovati said, "and this is one of the problems the Trump administration faces."

At the same time, Morovati said, Arab countries do not act as a united bloc toward Tehran.

"If they come under severe security and economic pressure, they may take joint action, but so far that hasn't happened in practice," Morovati said.

What now for Saudi Arabia after Riyadh airport attack?

Memarian also sees the economic costs as an incentive for a deal. But he also claims that each side believes that inflicting more pain on the other will strengthen its hand in future talks.

"That can easily turn this into a war of attrition, and in recent months that has been the approach," Memarian said. Neither side has yet reached the point where it sees compromise as unavoidable.