The Republicans’ defeat in the US congressional midterm elections and the loss of their majorities in both chambers to the Democrats have raised an important question about the future of the war between Iran and the United States: Will Trump move toward escalating the military confrontation with Iran to compensate for his major domestic political setback, or will his new political constraints instead push him toward de-escalation and a way out of the war?
Answering this question requires more than a personality-based assessment of Donald Trump. It calls for examining several factors simultaneously, including the Republican Party’s internal competition ahead of the 2028 presidential election, the possibility of congressional oversight and legal proceedings against the Trump administration, the weakening of the US president’s international standing, Netanyahu’s political position in Israel and, above all, the costs and unpredictable consequences of entering another war with Iran.
Two Scenarios: Escalating the War or Seeking a Way Out?
Under the first scenario, some observers, focusing on Trump’s personality traits, particularly his narcissism, acute sensitivity to defeat and desire to project strength, believe he may take a high-risk action against Iran to compensate for the electoral blow and restore his image of authority. From this perspective, electoral defeat could motivate Trump to demonstrate military strength rather than restrain his behavior, shifting public attention from a domestic crisis to an external one. Some of Hillary Clinton’s remarks about the possibility of an unpredictable response by Trump to defeat have also been analyzed in this context.
The second scenario, however, emphasizes a different reality: Despite his efforts to project an image of strength and an unwillingness to back down, Trump generally takes his personal and political interests into account when making costly decisions. From this perspective, electoral defeat would serve not as an incentive for a new war but as a warning about the mounting costs of one. Trump now faces a Congress in which both chambers are controlled by his political rivals, potentially turning the final two years of his presidency into a period of investigations, political confrontations and constraints on executive action.
Of course, neither scenario can be considered certain. The central question is whether Trump’s personal and political interests under the new circumstances will align with entering another war or instead lead him toward containing tensions and finding a way to bring the conflict to an end.
2028 Race: A Rift in the Republican Camp
One of the most important factors that must not be overlooked when assessing the future of the war is the early start of the Republican Party’s internal competition ahead of the 2028 presidential election. Remarks by Trump's Vice President JD Vance after the Republicans’ defeat became clear offer a significant indication of this trend.
On November 4, Vance posted a blunt message on X, identifying the war with Iran as the main reason for the Republican Party’s defeat. “The reason we lost is the war,” he wrote. Referring even to the loss of the Senate majority, he questioned whether the cost of such a defeat could really be justified by continuing the war. Vance also stressed that his earlier recommendation to end the war had been the right one. The Washington Post, the Associated Press and Reuters described his position as an unmistakable effort by the vice president to distance himself from Trump’s war policy and as a sign of his political calculations for the future.
The significance of Vance’s remarks lies not merely in his disagreement with Trump, but in the fact that some Republicans appear to have concluded that continuing along the current course will not only fail to help the party retain power but could also diminish its chances of returning to the White House in 2028. As a result, efforts to restore the Republicans’ credibility may gradually become a constraint on Trump’s costly decisions.
Under these circumstances, if Trump seeks to derail that recovery by escalating the war, the rift within the party could deepen. Even impeachment could become one of the tools in this confrontation. With control of the House of Representatives, Democrats will be able to initiate impeachment proceedings and conduct extensive investigations into the administration.
Although conviction and removal of the president in the Senate require a two-thirds vote of the senators present, and a Democratic majority alone is not enough, a potential split among Republicans could complicate the calculations. Reuters reported on November 5, in particular, that Democrats were planning investigations into the Trump family’s business dealings and intended to use Congress’s oversight powers.
Netanyahu: An Ally Facing a Crisis of His Own
Another important factor is the weakening of Trump’s international standing and the political predicament facing his main ally in the war against Iran, Benjamin Netanyahu. The Republican defeat reduces Trump’s political capacity to shape international coalitions and impose his will. At the same time, Netanyahu is facing a difficult situation in Israeli domestic politics. A Reuters report on November 5 indicates that Israel’s October 27 election did not produce a clear majority for Netanyahu’s bloc, while support from some Arab parties for his rival, Gadi Eisenkot, has weakened the prime minister’s position.
From this perspective, Netanyahu may continue pressing for the resumption of war with Iran, but his ability to turn that demand into a definitive decision in Washington will face greater constraints. This is particularly relevant given reports of disagreements between Trump and Netanyahu over whether to give negotiations a chance.
Trump must also consider his own political future and even the legal cases involving him and his family. If Republicans lose power to the Democrats in the 2028 elections, the next administration could pursue investigations into Trump’s conduct and the business activities of his family more aggressively. Preserving the Republicans’ chances of returning to power is therefore not merely a party objective for the US president; it may also be closely tied to his personal calculations.
Iran: Decisive Variable in the White House’s Calculations
Despite all these factors, perhaps the most important variable in Trump’s calculations is the uncertainty surrounding Iran’s response to the resumption of war. Having experienced two previous wars and witnessed Iran’s ability to impose military, economic and regional costs, Washington cannot confidently predict the scope or consequences of another confrontation. The issue is not limited to the potential damage to military facilities. The possible expansion of the war, energy security, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz and the consequences for the global economy are also part of the United States’ calculations.
Trump is, in effect, facing a dilemma. On the one hand, backing down without any tangible achievement to show against Iran could further undermine his political and international credibility. On the other, entering another war whose duration and consequences cannot be predicted could turn his electoral defeat into a much deeper crisis for his administration and the Republican Party. This is precisely the situation in which Iran’s deterrent power and the unpredictability of its response become influential factors in the White House’s calculations.
In this context, a letter sent by JD Vance to Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, before the US elections takes on particular significance. The Wall Street Journal and later Axios reported that the letter was sent under Trump’s direction to explore the possibility of resuming negotiations.
The timing of the move is noteworthy. At a time when signs pointed to a possible Republican defeat and Trump was still speaking of the possibility of military action after the election, keeping a channel of communication with Tehran open could have been a preemptive step to preserve the diplomatic option, without forcing Washington to portray the move as a retreat prompted by electoral concerns. In other words, the White House sought to preserve both the option of military pressure and the possibility of a political understanding.
Vance’s post-election remarks now reinforce the impression that opposition to continuing the war is gaining ground within the US political establishment, although this cannot yet be taken as a definitive decision by the administration to end the confrontation.
Overall, the Republicans’ defeat does not necessarily mean the end of the military threat against Iran, and the possibility of impulsive actions by Trump cannot be ruled out. However, the new political equations have substantially increased the cost of deciding to launch another war. Trump must now calculate not only the potential consequences of war with Iran but also how they would affect the future of the Republican Party, the 2028 election race, his own political position and the constraints imposed by a Democratic-controlled Congress.
From this perspective, the most important message of the US elections for Tehran is not an assurance that the military option has been abandoned. Rather, it is that the gap between the warmongering demands of some US allies and the costs Washington would have to bear to fulfill them has become more apparent. This situation could create greater room for dignified diplomacy and the consolidation of Iran’s deterrence, provided Tehran continues to take seriously the possibility that the threat may persist and that the other side could miscalculate.
