US Midterms Could Raise Cost of Attacking Iran, Experts Say

Two Iranian experts believe that a Democratic victory in the US midterm elections, securing majorities in both houses of Congress, would increase the political cost for President Donald Trump of launching any new military attacks against Iran. However, they did not rule out the possibility of limited military action. Mohammad Ali Sidhanai, Head of the Center for International Diplomacy, and Mohammad Rasouli, an expert in international relations and American affairs, shared these assessments with Anadolu Agency regarding the potential repercussions of the election results on Washington's policy toward Tehran.

Sidhanai stated that Trump losing congressional majorities would raise the political price of a new military strike on Iran but would not eliminate the possibility of such an attack. He noted that a limited military operation remains possible, but a large-scale, prolonged war would be more difficult and costly for Trump. Sidhanai pointed to the intensified US military presence, naval deployments, and logistical preparations as indicators that the military option is still seriously considered, though not necessarily decided upon. He emphasized that the midterm election results do not negate the possibility of a new attack on Iran.

Regarding the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran, Sidhanai warned of devastating consequences for international security and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, along with immense strategic and political costs for the US. He suggested that Israel's likelihood of attacking Iran would decrease without US support, but Tel Aviv might resort to limited military strikes or covert operations. Sidhanai expressed concern that Trump might miscalculate strategically, believing a "decisive blow" could end the conflict, describing Iran as a "Pandora's box" the US should not open. He was pessimistic about diplomatic breakthroughs, despite Trump's weakened domestic political standing, stressing that diplomacy is the only solution and that Trump must abandon his "unconditional surrender" approach for talks to succeed. Sidhanai added that Iran is open to diplomacy and flexibility, but it cannot be one-sided, and the election results might pressure Trump to reconsider his strategy.

Rasouli described the US-Iran situation as "neither war nor peace" following the Islamabad agreement, turning the issue into a contest of wills. He explained that the challenge lies in which economy can better withstand pressure and its impact on domestic and foreign politics. Rasouli argued that the midterm election results indicated the US economy's inability to sustain such pressures, leading to significant Republican losses. He cited rising energy prices and living costs due to the conflict as factors influencing voters, even in traditionally Republican strongholds like Kansas and Texas, contributing to Democratic gains. Rasouli suggested that these election outcomes could influence Trump's decision on new attacks, noting that while the US President has broad foreign policy powers, domestic constraints are increasing. He believes an attack on Iran remains an option for Trump, potentially as retaliation for election results or to claim a victory.

Concerning Israel's potential involvement, Rasouli stated that Israel typically consults Washington before launching attacks and seeks US participation. He noted that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces domestic political complexities and would need Trump's support for Israeli unity. Rasouli recalled that Netanyahu secured US backing during a previous conflict, which involved significant US spending impacting the American economy and politics.