Iran war: Will Trump's midterm defeat end or entrench the conflict with Tehran?

Iran war: Will Trump's midterm defeat end or entrench the conflict with Tehran?

Submitted by Seyed Hossein Mousavian on Fri, 11/06/2026 - 16:29 The greatest victory for both nations would be neither military triumph nor the humiliation of the other, but the achievement of a lasting peace An Iranian demonstrator holds a flag denouncing US President Donald Trump, in Tehran on 4 November 2026 (Atta Kenare/AFP) Off

The US midterm elections delivered a historic defeat to President Donald Trump’s Republican Party, which lost control of both houses of Congress. 

Democrats achieved remarkable victories in traditionally Republican strongholds, including Texas and Kansas, while Abdul El-Sayed became the first Muslim elected to the US Senate. American newspapers described the outcome as a “blue tsunami” and a political demolition of Trump.

In Tehran, the election results were interpreted as a major political setback for the Trump administration, and a vindication of Iran’s resistance to US-Israeli military pressure. Iran’s top security chief, Mohsen Rezaei, wrote on X (formerly Twitter): “The Iranian nation handed Trump a strategic defeat on the battlefield and in the Hormuz - and a POLITICAL DEFEAT in Washington.” 

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf appeared to share US Vice President JD Vance’s concerns about the political costs of the Iran war and the Republicans’ electoral defeat. 

Responding to Vance on X, Ghalibaf warned: “Boss is prepping the next war phase while America teeters on an Israel-First cliff. Skip the TED talk. Why not say this to your boss?” His message highlighted the possibility of common ground on ending the war.

Interestingly, the grievances identified by Vance closely resemble warnings that Iranian officials, international political figures, and I myself repeatedly raised in articles and interviews following the US-Israeli wars against Iran in 2025 and 2026. 

We warned that military confrontation would deepen regional instability, disrupt global energy markets, increase economic pressures on ordinary Americans, undermine Trump’s promise to avoid new wars, and further entangle Washington in Israel’s regional conflicts. Unfortunately, these warnings found little reception in Washington.

Opportunities and dangers

Yet the election does not automatically make a diplomatic breakthrough more likely. It creates both opportunities and serious dangers.

With both major American parties increasingly focused on the 2028 presidential election, Iran is likely to remain a central issue in their political confrontation, as it was during the midterms. Against this backdrop, Trump and the Republican Party face two fundamentally different choices.

The first is to transform the narrative of electoral defeat into one of military victory. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has openly advocated overthrowing Iran’s government, declaring that “there is only one way to remove this threat once and for all: overthrow the regime in Iran”. He also claimed that Trump had assured him the US was “ready to finish the job”. 

The message to US leaders, particularly Republicans, is increasingly clear: enough is enough. Americans do not want another endless war

Under pressure from such hawkish demands, Trump could be drawn into launching another massive offensive against Iran, hoping to achieve the regime change that previous military operations failed to deliver.

But this option rests on a dangerous assumption: that greater military force will succeed where the wars of 2025 and 2026 failed. Another major offensive could trigger devastating Iranian retaliation, threaten energy supplies, destabilise Washington’s regional allies, and prolong the conflict into the 2028 election. 

Rather than rescuing the Republicans, it could produce an even greater political disaster. If Trump chooses renewed military escalation, figures such as Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth would likely play leading roles in its implementation.

The second option is to transform the electoral setback into a historic diplomatic opportunity through an “Islamabad plus” framework built on two complementary pillars: the memorandum of understanding brokered by Pakistan earlier this year, and new regional security arrangements. 

The first step would be to revive and expand the Islamabad memorandum to end the war and resolve outstanding disputes, including Iran’s nuclear programme, freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of the US maritime blockade, and other critical security and economic issues.

The “plus” would establish an inclusive regional security and cooperation framework, building on the mediation efforts of regional actors - Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar and Oman - to promote collective security, economic cooperation and sustainable peace. 

Qatar’s foreign minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, has said that Gulf countries and Iran need a framework based on cooperation, sovereignty and mutual security. Oman’s foreign minister, Badr al-Busaidi, has called on the Arab Gulf states, Iraq and Iran to unite under a single “non-aggression” security pact.

Such an agreement could stabilise energy markets, ease inflationary pressures, protect regional countries from further destruction, and create more favourable conditions for addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Trump could thus secure a historic legacy: ending decades of US-Iran hostility and helping to establish a new regional security architecture, rather than pursuing another devastating war. If Trump chooses this path, Vance should lead the diplomatic initiative.

Overriding priorities

The debate in Tehran is equally consequential. One school of thought favours continuing the confrontation until the US suffers a decisive strategic defeat, withdraws its military forces from the region, and abandons Netanyahu’s “Greater Israel” project.

Some proponents of this approach also advocate withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and developing nuclear weapons. They argue that decades of NPT membership, Iran’s religious prohibition against nuclear weapons, and extensive cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency failed to prevent sanctions, sabotage, and ultimately military attacks. 

Trump's midterm defeat gives the Gulf a chance to escape America's forever wars Read More »

Ebrahim Rezaei, a member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said 10 proposals to withdraw from the treaty had been registered, and withdrawal was under consideration, according to the Fars news agency. According to this view, nuclear deterrence offers stronger protection than international legal commitments. 

According to what I have heard from individuals close to key decision-makers in Tehran, Iran still prefers a negotiated settlement.

However, repeated US military attacks despite diplomatic efforts, particularly the collapse of the Islamabad MOU, have deepened scepticism about Vance’s peace initiative.

In the absence of an agreement, Tehran appears determined to respond to any renewed US attack by expanding the confrontation into a full-scale regional war, targeting US military infrastructure across the region, and fundamentally reshaping regional security arrangements to prevent future attacks by Washington and Tel Aviv.

Signalling its preparedness for a potentially wider war, Iran’s IRGC has announced the removal of its self-imposed 2,000-kilometre ballistic missile range limit, maintained for nearly three decades. This follows Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei’s warning that Iran’s response to future US or Israeli attacks would have no geographical limits.

But this strategy carries enormous risks. A prolonged war of attrition would devastate Iran’s economy, increase human suffering, endanger neighbouring countries, and threaten global stability. Pursuing nuclear weapons could also invite further attacks before Iran could establish a credible deterrent. 

A settlement based on humiliation, coercion or one-sided concessions would merely prepare the ground for another conflict

Iran’s overriding national priorities should be securing a permanent end to the war, and overcoming its severe economic challenges. Prolonged confrontation would accomplish neither.

The alternative is a comprehensive diplomatic settlement that protects Iran’s sovereignty, legitimate security interests, and economic future. 

For negotiations to succeed, however, Washington and Tehran must recognise one fundamental principle: any sustainable agreement must be honourable and mutually beneficial. Neither will accept unconditional surrender. A settlement based on humiliation, coercion or one-sided concessions would merely prepare the ground for another conflict. 

That is why a Vance-Ghalibaf diplomatic initiative, built around an “Islamabad plus” framework and supported by key regional powers, deserves serious consideration.

History offers a powerful lesson: from the political backlash against the Vietnam War in the 1970s, to the Republicans’ electoral defeats amid the Iraq War in 2006, and the Iran war two decades later, prolonged military confrontations have repeatedly imposed heavy political costs on Washington. 

The message to US leaders, particularly Republicans, is increasingly clear: enough is enough. Americans do not want another endless war. Military superiority does not guarantee strategic victory. 

Trump and Tehran now face a historic choice between further confrontation and a diplomatic settlement. The greatest victory for both nations would be neither military triumph nor the humiliation of the other, but a lasting peace that ends decades of hostility and establishes a new era of regional security and cooperation.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

War on Iran Opinion Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29 Update Date Override 0