The Iranian regime is aware of the timing's sensitivity, with estimates suggesting it seeks to increase the political cost on Washington as the elections approach. The equation appears reversed between the two sides.
The U.S. midterm elections have entered the fray with Iran before their scheduled date. President Donald Trump predicted the war would end immediately after the elections, accusing Tehran of trying to influence their outcome by prolonging the conflict. His linking of the two paths highlights the significant impact of November 3 on the decisions of an administration engaged in a foreign war and facing a domestic political challenge.
November's importance grows as the war's costs reach the American voter through rising fuel prices and living expenses, at a time when Republicans need to maintain their majority in Congress. Losing one of the chambers provides Democrats with wider oversight tools over the administration and military spending. As the polling date approaches, the continuation of the war becomes an electoral burden on Republicans.
The Iranian regime is aware of the timing's sensitivity, and estimates suggest it seeks to increase the political cost on Washington as the elections approach. The equation appears reversed between the two sides. Trump bets that Iran cannot withstand the pressure beyond the polling date, while Tehran believes that the war's continuation will make Trump's political position more difficult as the election decision nears.
Washington tends towards a more selective management of the war, combining targeted strikes, economic and maritime pressure, and sanctions, attempting to contain operations without opening additional fronts. This approach can be described as a rational use of power or risk management. However, its success hinges on the ability to prevent the adversary from exploiting the restraint in escalation and expanding the conflict into other arenas.
Iran has deliberately increased navigation risks and insurance costs, contributing to higher energy prices, but pays an economic price with disrupted exports and its oil tankers becoming targets of U.S. strikes.
Continued use of the Strait of Hormuz as a confrontation tool encourages regional countries to accelerate alternatives, which may reduce its value as an Iranian card. The call from former Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to end the war and his more flexible stance on Hormuz has stirred debate within Iran about the costs of continuing the current approach.
As Iran's options in the Strait of Hormuz narrow, the geographical value of Yemen at Bab al-Mandab rises. The Houthis' advances in Mokha, Dhubab, Meyun, and Hanish have brought them closer to trade and energy routes in the Red Sea, enhancing their ability to threaten ships with simpler and shorter-range military means.
Reports of support and advice from Iran strengthen the connection between the two fronts. The handling of the Houthis in recent years has largely been based on containment, yet they continue to act in the logic of an armed militia, regaining control over previously liberated areas. Thus, the pressure expanded from one maritime corridor to two, creating a strategic loss that requires reconsideration of the Yemeni file in both its north and south.
The Trump administration seeks to ensure continued passage through Bab al-Mandeb without a direct military confrontation with the Houthis, preferring to support its partners while focusing its capabilities on confronting Iran.
However, avoiding opening an additional front may allow the Houthis to solidify gains that make subsequent dealings with them more challenging. Additionally, escalating risks in the Red Sea put pressure on alternatives intended to reduce reliance on the Strait of Hormuz, with effects extending to the Suez Canal.
The UAE presents an approach that combines firmness with keeping the door open for dialogue. The meeting of His Highness Sheikh Khalid bin Mohammed bin Zayed, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, with Iranian President Massoud Bazashkian on the sidelines of the "BRICS" summit in New Delhi reflects a position that deals with the Iranian regime firmly and economically pressures it, while not closing the political path. Dialogue is possible if based on a strong stance, but regaining trust after the attacks will not be easy and will depend on a change in Iranian behavior.
The outcome of November will affect Trump's maneuvering margin. A Republican victory gives him wider political leeway to continue his approach, while losing one or both chambers may increase political, oversight, and financial constraints without assuming they will end the war.
In both cases, the Gulf needs genuine cooperation to enhance its ability to protect its interests and security, combining deterrence and diplomacy, regardless of who holds the majority in Congress.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.
Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter
