The impact of the Iran conflict on the midterm elections reveals a deep malaise in the American psyche that makes us vulnerable to our enemies. If an extra dollar per gallon and 1% higher inflation for a year or so is too heavy a burden to end a nuclear threat, the old Soviet saying that “when it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope” sounds about right.
In June 2025, Israel’s war with Iran ended when the U.S. bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities in Operation Midnight Hammer. After Iran’s continued aggression, and reports that it massacred up to 30,000 of its own citizens and restarted its nuclear program, on Feb. 28, Donald Trump launched Operation Epic Fury. Its goals were to ensure that Iran could never acquire nuclear weapons; to destroy its missile capabilities and navy; to prevent it from arming, funding and directing terrorist proxies; and to offer hope to the Iranian people.
Epic Fury made considerable progress, but after 38 days Trump declared a ceasefire. Since then, the U.S. has blockaded Iranian ports, imposed economic sanctions, and sporadically attacked Iranian military installations and skirmished with Iranian forces.
In assessing the Iran conflict, Americans have splintered into several camps:
- Islamists, communists, progressives, antisemites, and conspiracy theorists argue that Iran was not close to obtaining a nuclear weapon before the U.S. attack on Feb. 28 and had promised not to pursue one. Many of these critics insist that Iran has the same right as any other country to develop nuclear weapons and the world “needs” an Iranian nuclear bomb to balance Israel.
- Traditional liberals, moderates, and some Republicans argue that although Iran should not obtain a nuclear weapon, the process leading up to the Feb. 28 attack was flawed. At least some of these critics might have supported an attack that had buy-in from Congress and foreign allies, preferably after the midterm elections. They believe the price increases caused by the conflict were a major factor in the Republicans’ election drubbing. The day after the midterms, JD Vance, who opposed the mission, posted on X that the Iran War and Israel are at fault for Republicans’ midterm losses.
Both of these groups also point to Trump’s boast that that Midnight Hammer “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capability.
- Those who supported the Feb. 28 attack argue that the United States should have stayed the course. Though many in this camp question whether the logistics and supply operations were up to the task and whether the timeline for completion was realistic, and some endorse the transition to a blockade and sanctions, most supporters believe that had Trump resumed combat operations, the United States would already have downsized its deployments in the Middle East, the Strait of Hormuz would be open, and oil, gas, and agriculture prices would be on the way to pre-war levels. They believe that the conflict has become a low-intensity quagmire that is allowing Iran to rebuild its capabilities.
To most supporters of Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury, the discussion of prices and the midterms is misplaced. Lower prices and winning elections are good, but a nuclear armed Iran is an existential threat that must be solved regardless of the transient financial impact or election outcome.
Trump usually shares this perspective. For more than 25 years, he has insisted that Iran must not obtain a nuclear weapon. Asked about Vance’s post, Trump acknowledged that the war may have increased gas prices and thereby harmed Republican candidates, but he concluded that “I’d have to do it again because long-term, it’s the only answer. You can’t let Iran have a nuclear weapon.”
Leaders must place survival of their country and its citizens ahead of winning votes. If Trump had been more forthcoming, empathetic, and consistent in his messaging he might have mitigated the sting. Nonetheless, his duty is to America’s continued existence, not his political party’s performance in the midterm elections.
When Trump declared a ceasefire, he dispatched Vance to work out a settlement. The result was a disastrous MOU. As I wrote in RealClearPolitics:
Trump has shown more integrity and grit in the Middle East than any president before him. He restored America’s relationships with Saudi Arabia and the UAE; created a genuine partnership with Israel and expanded it through the Abraham Accords; opened an American era in Syria and Lebanon; and, with Operations Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury, derailed Iran’s nuclear program and severely degraded its military capabilities. He was the best friend Israel – and the Arab states – ever had.
Then, suddenly, his goals shifted. Though he undoubtedly intends America’s friends in the Middle East no harm, Trump abandoned Epic Fury for a “no cost too high” mad dash for a deal. He wanted the MOU in the worst way…. The premature end of Epic Fury shows that foreign-funded and influenced intersectional leftists have hollowed out America’s power, and that Trump lacked the steadfastness needed to overcome the drop in his approval ratings.
Within a week, both parties breached the MOU. I explained:
The MOU was poorly drafted to obtain Iran’s acquiescence. Trump wanted an off ramp, while Iran was a reluctant participant brought along by promises of money, time, and a winnowing of U.S. demands. … Trump and Vice President JD Vance have re-imagined the deal as the one Trump sought instead of the MOU Trump signed; Iran hijacked the first negotiating session to make it about Israel, rather than Iran’s nuclear program; [and] Vance joined the anti-Israel caravan with repeated harsh criticism of its government.
Iran also launched a world-class public relations effort that put to shame Trump’s repeated bluffs of “annihilating” Iran or sending it “back to the stone age.” The far more sophisticated Iranian campaign, aided and abetted by fellow travelers on college campuses and European capitals, portrayed the Revolutionary Guard as freedom fighters and the U.S. as a bully. It painted Iran as a peace-loving nation, even as it continued to execute, starve, and imprison thousands of its citizens, launch indiscriminate attacks on civilians throughout the Middle East, support Houthi attacks on international shipping, and coordinate with Hezbollah and Hamas to attack Israel.
The overwhelming evidence – including admissions made by Iran’s negotiators in meetings with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner – supports the conclusion that prior to Feb. 28, Iran was, at most, within several months of being able to manufacture up to 11 nuclear warheads, and it was working with Russia, China, and North Korea to perfect ICBMs capable of reaching the United States. Its attack on Diego Garcia shows that its missiles can reach Europe.
Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, U.K., and other countries allied with the United States, and sponsored wide-ranging terrorist attacks on shipping and civilians.
Given its aggression and its amassing and use of an arsenal of more than 7,000 missiles, countless drones, a deep sea navy, and an air force, there is no reason to doubt that if Iran obtained nuclear weapons it would use them against Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. To believe otherwise is to impose Western values on a vengeful Islamic theocracy. Islamic radicals do not fear America’s counterstrike; rather, they seek martyrdom, which the Islamic Circle of North America describes as “the ultimate demonstration of one’s commitment and devotion to God and religious principles.”
If Iran uses nuclear weapons, the price of oil and fertilizer will be the least of our concerns.
This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
