Iran International
Democrats' victory in both chambers of Congress could strengthen oversight of Donald Trump's war with Iran, but some analysts say the electoral setback may encourage the US president to intensify military operations before the new Congress takes office in January.
The Democratic takeover gives opponents of the war greater influence over military spending, congressional investigations and legislation restricting presidential authority. Yet it also creates a nearly two-month period in which Trump can pursue military objectives before lawmakers assume their new positions on January 3.
The possibility that electoral defeat could encourage further military action emerged in assessments by foreign policy specialists and analysts interviewed by Iran International on Tuesday.
"We can expect Trump to carry out a major military operation, perhaps even more intense than what he would have undertaken had he retained control of Congress," international relations analyst Fereshteh Pezeshk told Iran International.
Pezeshk argued that Trump could seek to demonstrate his authority and influence the media narrative following Republican losses. She said the incoming Congress might delay military funding or create other obstacles, but would have limited power to restrain the president, who would remain commander-in-chief after January 3.
Trump acknowledged the economic impact of the Iran war after the Republican defeat but rejected the suggestion that voters opposed the military campaign itself.
"I don't think it's the war. I think it's a gasoline price. People agree with what I'm doing on Iran, but they really probably weren't willing to do the short-term consequence of paying more for gasoline," Trump told Fox News.
The president nevertheless defended his Iran policy.
"I am totally convinced that my decision on Iran for the long term good of our country and even the world was absolutely the correct one and it continues to be," Trump told Politico.
Could defeat encourage a bigger offensive?
The administration was preparing a major new offensive against Iran before the midterms, and the election result could strengthen Trump's incentive to proceed during the transition period, Barbara Slavin, a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center, wrote on November 2.
Slavin identified reopening the Strait of Hormuz and securing Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium as possible objectives.
But she said that renewed attacks could expose American allies in the Persian Gulf to further Iranian retaliation, increase energy costs and cause extensive destruction without achieving Washington's goals.
A military escalation could also offer Trump a way to seek a decisive outcome before Democrats acquire greater oversight powers.
Trump's calculations differ from those of conventional presidents because he places considerable weight on his personal political achievements, journalist and political analyst Omid Memarian told Iran International.
"Trump is an unconventional president whose calculations of costs and benefits are very different from those of other politicians and former presidents," Memarian said.
He argued that the president could use the period before January to launch a concentrated military operation, weaken Iran's military or nuclear capabilities, declare victory and then seek negotiations or reduce American involvement.
"I think it may even have increased the likelihood of an attack," Memarian said.
A Democratic Congress would make managing the war more difficult through investigations, committee hearings and scrutiny of military decisions, Memarian said. That could increase Trump's incentive to seek a faster conclusion rather than simply abandon military options.
The possibility has a historical parallel. After Republicans lost the 2006 midterm elections, President George W. Bush increased US troop deployments to Iraq the following year despite mounting public opposition to the conflict.
That precedent does not establish what Trump will do, but it illustrates why an electoral defeat need not produce an immediate reduction in military operations.
How much power will Democrats have?
Control of Congress gives Democrats substantial legislative and budgetary authority, but the president remains commander-in-chief.
Congress can investigate the administration, restrict appropriations and pass legislation addressing military operations. Trump, however, can veto restrictive legislation, requiring two-thirds majorities in both chambers to override him.
"Even if Democrats hold a majority in both houses, their influence will be limited to the legislative and political tools of Congress," former national security adviser John Bolton told Deutsche Welle.
Democrats have already sought to use Congress's financial authority against the war.
Senator Tim Kaine, who has repeatedly challenged Trump's military operations without congressional authorization, pledged in August to continue efforts to cut off funding.
"I'm going to keep doing all that I can to cut off funding for what will go down in history as one of America's most foolish foreign policy catastrophes of all time," Kaine said in an official statement.
Other Democrats, including Senator Chris Coons, have distinguished between replenishing American military stockpiles and financing operations that would effectively extend the conflict.
Yet restricting funding may become politically harder if Trump orders a major offensive before January.
Democrats could inherit responsibility for decisions about supplying American troops already engaged in combat, political analyst Morad Veisi said. Opposing the war would not necessarily make lawmakers willing to withhold resources from deployed forces.
Could Trump pursue the Islamic Republic's downfall?
The possible objectives of further military action remain a major point of disagreement among analysts interviewed by Iran International.
Trump could regard the remainder of his presidency as an opportunity to secure a historic legacy, potentially including military action contributing to the Islamic Republic's downfall, Veisi said.
"I think Trump could leave behind a political legacy by helping bring about the downfall of the Islamic Republic. I'm not saying he will definitely do it, but it would be consistent with his character, and he has 60 days," Veisi said.
Veisi linked that possibility to what he described as Israel's increasingly explicit pursuit of the Islamic Republic's removal. He argued that Trump might support a broader campaign if he believed it could deliver a defining political achievement.
The analyst also suggested that an expanded conflict launched before January could leave incoming Democrats confronting military commitments they would find difficult to reverse.
Pezeshk offered a different assessment, distinguishing between forcing the Islamic Republic to submit to American demands and deliberately seeking its overthrow.
"We still do not see evidence that Trump is taking steps that would lead us to conclude he intends to overthrow the Islamic Republic rather than force it to submit," Pezeshk told Iran International.
She argued that Trump appeared more attracted to a Venezuela-style approach than an Iraq-style intervention involving prolonged American responsibility for political reconstruction.
She also questioned whether Washington had a clear plan for replacing Iran's governing institutions.
Could Tehran misread the election?
Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf portrayed the election result as a rejection of the war and warned Washington against disregarding what he described as the will of American voters.
"Conscience or the cost of living, Americans said NO TO WAR, and we endorse this message," Ghalibaf wrote on X.
"If the US govt betrays their public will to serve international paymasters and blackmailers, it will learn our NO comes with a Nightmare," he added.
Ghalibaf's message combined his interpretation of the election with a warning of consequences if Washington continued its military campaign.
But the shift in congressional control does not necessarily signal a corresponding change in Washington's strategic objectives.
Iranian leaders should not mistake political divisions in Washington for a weakening of American power, Washington-based national security specialist Amir Hamidi told Iran International.
"President Trump may lose his congressional majority, but he has not lost his presidential authority. An electoral defeat for one party is not a defeat of America's national power," Hamidi said.
Hamidi added that the Islamic Republic could pay a heavy price for misreading the election result, arguing that the US president remains commander-in-chief and retains significant authority over diplomacy and crisis management.
Congressional oversight of military operations and war spending could increase under Democratic control, but that would not necessarily diminish US deterrence or its longstanding security commitments, Hamidi said.
A narrowing window before January
The Democratic victory may have changed the political timetable for the Iran war without changing who controls its immediate course.
Until the new Congress takes office on January 3, Trump retains the authority to make military decisions that could shape the conflict well beyond the transition period. A major offensive during those weeks could leave incoming lawmakers confronting decisions already made and military commitments difficult to reverse.
The election result also presents a question for the Islamic Republic: whether Washington's domestic political divisions will translate into restraint or whether an approaching deadline could encourage further military action.
The coming weeks may therefore matter more than the new balance of power in Congress. A vote intended to change the direction of American politics could precede a decisive turn in a war that the incoming lawmakers have yet to gain the power to influence.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi regularly requests talks with his German counterpart as Berlin works with regional countries to prevent renewed US and Israeli attacks on Iran, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said on Wednesday.
“I am not pushing to speak with Iran’s foreign minister; he regularly asks me to speak with him again,” Wadephul said on the Politik mit Anne Will podcast.
Wadephul said Germany was maintaining contact with Tehran while urging Iran to engage constructively in negotiations and pressing Washington to give diplomacy a chance.
He described the coming days as critical, saying a decision on further US military action had not yet been made.
Germany urges both sides to pursue negotiations
Wadephul said he had discussed the risk of renewed fighting with the foreign ministers of Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, including in conversations following a recent G20 meeting.
The discussions focused on identifying possible areas of agreement, bringing the parties back to negotiations and preventing further escalation.
“You have to persuade Iran to be ready to negotiate, which is not easy because its leadership is very divided and there are several factions,” he said.
“I cannot guarantee that this will succeed, but it is my task, together with my colleagues, to do everything we can to resolve this crisis through diplomacy and avoid another round of fighting that would make all of us suffer.”
Wadephul also pointed to a recent meeting in Istanbul, where the foreign ministers of Germany, France, Italy, Britain, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan jointly called for restraint.
He said Germany's relationships with Washington and Israel allowed it to communicate its concerns directly to both governments.
Military action cannot bring political change, Wadephul says
Despite his criticism of Iran's leadership, Wadephul argued that another military campaign would not produce political change in Tehran.
He described the Islamic Republic as a government that imprisons, tortures and executes its citizens, but said any change in the country's political system would have to come from Iranians themselves.
"Such change cannot be brought about militarily. It can only develop from within Iran," he said.
At the same time, Wadephul accused Tehran of pursuing nuclear weapons capabilities and supporting armed groups in neighboring countries, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and militias in Iraq.
"The cause of this conflict, of course, is an Iran that is preparing to arm itself with nuclear weapons and supports militias in many neighboring countries that do not respect those countries' sovereignty," he said.
He argued that Iran's activities had prompted military responses, while maintaining that further attacks would not provide a lasting solution.
Wadephul said Germany continued to favor economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure over renewed military action.
Berlin warns of risks around Strait of Hormuz
Wadephul expressed particular concern about the possibility of another escalation around the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for international oil shipments.
He said Germany and its partners were urging the United States to refrain from further strikes while encouraging Iran to negotiate, although neither side's response could be guaranteed.
The foreign minister also said he trusted US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who had indicated that President Donald Trump had not made a final decision on resuming major military operations against Iran.
"We're in critical days," Wadephul said. "No one can say exactly how the coming days will unfold."
He said the economic consequences of the conflict reinforced the need for a diplomatic settlement, pointing to higher energy prices affecting consumers and businesses across Europe.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz made a similar appeal Friday, saying the conflict could not be resolved militarily and calling for negotiations.
Speaking in Seoul, Merz said higher energy costs associated with the war had imposed more than 100 billion euros in additional expenses on European businesses and consumers over the past eight months.
He said Germany was intensifying diplomatic coordination with regional governments to help bring the conflict to an end.
US President Donald Trump said his decision to launch the war against Iran remained in the long-term interests of the United States and the world, despite rising fuel prices and Republican losses in Tuesday's midterm elections.
Democrats secured control of both the House and Senate in Tuesday's midterm elections, although counting continued in some races. The Iran war and its impact on fuel prices were among the issues raised during the campaign.
"I am totally convinced that my decision on Iran for the long term good of our country and even the world was absolutely the correct one and it continues to be," Trump told Politico.
Speaking separately to The Wall Street Journal, Trump said the conflict had contributed to the election results, but maintained that he did not regret launching the military campaign alongside Israel in February.
"Iran was a piece of it," he said when asked whether the war had affected Republican performance.
"I did the right thing. I would have done it again," he added.
Trump points to gasoline prices
In an interview with Fox News, Trump said higher fuel prices resulting from the Iran war had affected voters more than the military campaign itself.
"I don't think it's a war," he said when asked about the conflict's impact on the elections. "I think it's a gasoline price."
"People agree with what I'm doing on Iran, but they really probably weren't willing to do the short-term consequence of paying more for gasoline," he said.
Trump described the increase in fuel costs as a temporary consequence of a policy he believed would produce longer-term benefits.
"It's a short-term problem, but for long-term gain," he said.
The conflict has disrupted energy markets and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, contributing to higher fuel costs in the United States and internationally.
No immediate plans for new strikes
In a separate interview with the Financial Times, Trump said Washington had no immediate plans to launch another major attack on Iran, although American forces remained prepared to act if necessary.
"We seem to be getting everything we want," he said.
"We're ready. We're locked and loaded if we need to go, but there may be no reason for it."
Asked by Politico whether the US would escalate military operations against Iran following the elections, Trump said, "We're going to do what's best for this country."
Trump also played down the current level of hostilities, saying he did not consider the confrontation comparable to other major wars.
"I don't consider that we're in war like Ukraine, wars like World War I, World War II," he told the Financial Times.
His remarks followed an overnight US strike on an Iranian air defense facility on Monday. Trump described that operation as limited, saying it was "just a minor attack" and "wasn't war."
He also said indirect negotiations with Tehran were continuing over Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, which he described as "nuclear dust."
Tehran responds to US election results
Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf commented on the midterm elections on Wednesday, interpreting the Republican losses as a sign that American voters opposed the war.
"Conscience or the cost of living, Americans said NO TO WAR, and we endorse this message," he wrote on X.
Ghalibaf also warned Washington against disregarding what he described as the message from American voters.
His comments followed remarks earlier this week in which he said Tehran had delivered a "firm and rational response" to the United States and that the ball was now in Washington's court to prevent renewed fighting.
Diplomatic efforts continue
Qatar has been mediating between Washington and Tehran as both sides consider proposals intended to advance negotiations.
On Tuesday, Qatar's Foreign Ministry said the United States and Iran remained committed to the mediation process and were reviewing suggestions aimed at narrowing their differences.
A source briefed on the talks told Reuters that Qatari mediators expected responses from Washington and Tehran within 36 hours on a new proposal.
A senior Iranian official, however, told Reuters that the two countries remained far from reaching an agreement to end the war and that Tehran would not accept Washington's "excessive demands."
Iran has turned to Beijing and Moscow for backing in talks with Washington over the Strait of Hormuz. Mediators are weighing whether China could help guarantee that Washington delivers on sanctions relief in return for Iranian nuclear concessions.
Al Hadath reported on October 30 that mediators were considering a plan to match each Iranian nuclear concession with a US step to ease sanctions. The draft raised the possibility of China serving as a guarantor. Beijing’s account of its talks with an Iranian envoy on Monday gave no indication it had accepted that role.
The question has practical consequences for Tehran. In 2018, President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the 2015 nuclear agreement and reimposed sanctions. Matching concessions step by step could limit how much Iran gives up before it sees an economic return. What China would do if Washington later restored sanctions remains unclear.
Beijing also has a stake in reopening Hormuz
Ali Bagheri Kani, deputy secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing on Monday that Tehran wanted China to play a greater role in regional diplomacy. According to China’s foreign ministry, Wang backed Iran’s sovereignty and urged all sides to make concessions to avoid renewed fighting.
Wang’s separate meeting that day with Saudi national security adviser Musaed al-Aiban helps explain the limits of that backing. Wang stressed the need to protect energy supplies and shipping routes. China relies on oil shipped through Hormuz, giving it an interest in reopening the waterway even if Tehran would prefer to keep it closed until Washington meets its demands.
Beijing also announced plans to send its Middle East envoy, Zhai Jun, to Iran, Oman and Saudi Arabia. Oman’s Sultan Haitham bin Tariq welcomed a larger Chinese role during his own visit to Beijing. Qatar, meanwhile, continues to mediate between Tehran and Washington.
Where Moscow and Tehran agree
Mohsen Rezaei, who heads Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, spoke by phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday. The council said they discussed regional developments. Its public account gave no details of any agreement on the US naval blockade.
Putin said in October that he wanted shipping through Hormuz to resume and sanctions on Iran eventually lifted. Russia has also offered to take custody of Iran’s enriched uranium, giving Moscow a potential role if Tehran and Washington can agree on what happens to the stockpile.
For Tehran, the order of concessions matters. Rezaei said Tuesday that Washington must act on Iran’s seven conditions before the strait reopens. A senior Iranian official told Reuters the demands include oil sanctions waivers, an end to the naval blockade and the release of frozen funds. Moscow supports sanctions relief, but Putin has stopped short of endorsing Tehran’s demand that Washington move first.
Iranian students face mounting security pressure, with sit-ins in Tehran after a doctoral student set himself on fire following repeated disciplinary summonses and reports of dozens summoned by intelligence authorities in the southeast.
Students at the University of Tehran's Faculty of Social Sciences staged a sit-in outside the faculty dean's office at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, demanding an end to disciplinary measures and greater accountability from university authorities, according to the Telegram channel Daneshjuyan-e Mottahed.
The protest followed the self-immolation of Shahin Shokouhi, a sociology doctoral student who set himself on fire outside the university's Foulad building on Sunday after repeated summonses to a disciplinary committee and pressure from security authorities. He was subsequently taken to a medical facility.
The Telegram channel Daneshjuyan-e Pishro reported that students held sit-ins on Monday and Tuesday in response to the incident.
Protesters chanted slogans including "Free imprisoned students," "Free political prisoners," "Woman, Life, Freedom," "Students are awake and reject tyranny," and "Abolish disciplinary committees."
They also chanted "We want neither war nor bloodshed; long live the university."
Placards displayed during the protest read "Disciplinary committees = student self-immolation" and "University officials are responsible for Shahin Shokouhi's life."
Dozens summoned, students suspended in southeast Iran
Separately, dozens of students at the University of Sistan and Baluchestan have been summoned to the Intelligence Ministry since November 1, with some subsequently suspended from their studies for two semesters, according to the local rights group Haalvsh.
Sources cited by the rights group said students had been accused of "leading protests," "causing unrest at the university" and "acting as mercenaries," with some pressured into making forced confessions.
Students were also reportedly instructed to identify fellow students and provide intelligence authorities with information about their activities and personal connections.
Sources told Haalvsh that the university's disciplinary committee had shared students' information with the Intelligence Ministry.
Haalvsh said large numbers of students at the university had faced expulsion and suspension orders during the nationwide protests in January 2026, raising concerns about a repeat of those measures.
Student groups demand end to security pressure
The Islamic Student Associations of the University of Tehran and Tehran University of Medical Sciences criticized psychological pressure and what they described as arbitrary treatment of students following Shokouhi's self-immolation.
The associations called for reforms to university disciplinary committees, the abolition of unlawful procedures and rulings, and a transparent investigation into the incident.
Student councils from eight universities in Tehran also sent a joint letter to President Masoud Pezeshkian protesting increasingly aggressive actions by campus security offices, interference with students' clothing, restrictions on movement in university dormitories and pressure on student union activities.
"University security cannot be achieved through intimidation and extralegal controls," the letter said.
The councils urged authorities to end arbitrary treatment of students, clarify the limits of campus security officials' powers, review unfair disciplinary rulings and take steps to secure the release of detained students.
The letter was signed by student councils at Iran University of Science and Technology, Tarbiat Modares University, Alzahra University, Sharif University of Technology, Iran University of Art, Shahid Beheshti University, Allameh Tabataba'i University and Amirkabir University of Technology.
Iranian authorities have repeatedly arrested students and academics critical of the Islamic Republic over the past several decades, barring some from studying or teaching and subjecting others to security investigations and judicial proceedings.
Such measures have continued following the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom uprising and the nationwide protests in January this year, with students and academics facing summonses, expulsions and disciplinary rulings.
Iranian commentators are questioning whether Donald Trump can end the conflict with a short military operation, arguing that the unresolved confrontation over Hormuz and the threat of economic retaliation could frustrate an attempt to strike Iran and declare victory.
Vahid Khazab, a regular commentator on the state television program Be Vaght-e Iran (Iran Time), argued Monday night that the circumstances that allowed the 12-day war to end no longer applied.
He recalled that Trump declared that conflict over after the United States struck Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility and Tehran retaliated against the Al Udeid air base in Qatar. This time, he said, a strike would leave the question of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz unresolved.
“Suppose he attacks Kuh-e Kolang (Pickaxe Mountain) and then says, ‘That’s it, it’s over.’ Well, what happens to the Strait of Hormuz?” Khazab asked.
“This means the war has not ended. That is why a symbolic move like the one during the 12-day war is not possible,” he added.
Khazab argued that Trump needed to end the conflict either through military action or an agreement, while portraying Iran as unwilling to make concessions in negotiations.
He urged Tehran to convey a warning that renewed attacks would provoke retaliation carrying lasting economic and political costs for Washington.
“Trump must understand this. It is very important that this message be conveyed to him — publicly, officially, secretly, in any way — that if you attack again, Iran will respond in a way that will seriously jeopardize the next two years of your future and America’s future, particularly by causing economic problems, including a recession,” he said.
“This would make him refrain from taking risks, including launching even a short war, regardless of the electoral outcome, in order to protect his legacy.”
Nima Akbarkhani, another regular panelist introduced on the program as a military expert, discussed the possibility of Trump staging a “major, spectacular Hollywood-style operation” to declare victory and end the war.
He argued that even such an operation would leave Trump in a difficult political position if Democrats won the midterm congressional elections.
Mehdi Abbasi, a guest introduced as a US affairs expert, speculated that a Democratic victory could prompt Trump to attack Iran during the roughly two months before the new Congress takes office in January.
Limited strikes and plans for further attacks
The discussion came amid limited US military action and reports of preparations for a potentially broader confrontation.
The United States struck Iran’s Qeshm Island on Monday as part of a series of limited attacks in recent weeks, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing US officials.
Trump said Tuesday that US forces had destroyed an Iranian anti-aircraft installation that he said had taken about two months to build.
The New York Times separately reported Tuesday, citing US officials, that US Central Command had a plan to begin strikes against Iran as early as Wednesday, after the midterm elections. The reported plan did not establish that Trump had ordered an attack.
Responding to the Qeshm strike, Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said Tuesday that Iran remained in a state of war and retained the right to defend itself until military aggression against it had ended completely and permanently.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Monday that reports of plans for further military action against Iran were deeply concerning and urged renewed diplomatic efforts.
Tehran holds to its demands
Tehran and Washington continue to exchange messages through intermediaries, including Qatar. Trump and Vice President JD Vance have expressed optimism about diplomacy, while Iranian officials insist Washington must meet Tehran’s conditions.
Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said Tuesday that Washington’s response to Tehran’s demands was unconvincing. He said the Strait of Hormuz would reopen only after the United States explicitly addressed and implemented Iran’s seven conditions.
Vance sent Rezaei a letter through Qatar several days earlier. Rezaei did not specify whether his Tuesday remarks referred to that letter or another message conveyed through intermediaries.
Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf also warned Tuesday that Tehran’s response to a possible US attack would be unpredictable.
President Masoud Pezeshkian, meanwhile, reiterated that Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had granted his government additional powers to pursue negotiations.
Pezeshkian said his administration would seek to resolve the conflict through diplomacy but did not specify the scope of that authority.
His emphasis on negotiations drew criticism from hardline commentator and university professor Foad Izadi, who argued that such statements could help Washington choose the timing of another attack.
In a post responding to Pezeshkian, Izadi cited Trump’s remarks that oil prices were falling because people believed there would be no war with Iran and that Tehran wanted an agreement quickly.
Izadi accused Pezeshkian of helping Trump lower public expectations of war and manage oil prices by repeatedly emphasizing negotiations. He warned that Washington could attack again in the middle of diplomatic exchanges, at a time of its own choosing.
Speculation over nuclear weapons
Some Iranian commentary has also raised the possibility of nuclear weapons being used in a renewed confrontation, although Gharibabadi said Tuesday that Washington had not announced an official position on using such weapons against Iran.
Hossein Ajorlou, an international relations academic, told Fararu that a broad but short operation using powerful conventional weapons remained the most likely scenario.
He nevertheless speculated that Washington could consider tactical nuclear weapons if it failed to secure a quick result and reached a military stalemate.
Ajorlou emphasized that he considered conventional weapons, including bunker-busting bombs and precision-guided munitions, the likelier option.
Limits of a change in Congress
Several Iranian commentators have cautioned that a shift toward Democrats in Congress would not necessarily prevent another military confrontation.
Ali Hassan Heydari, an international affairs analyst writing for the hardline Siraj24 website, argued that victory for either party should not be interpreted as a fundamental change in Washington’s strategic approach.
A Democratic victory could nevertheless raise the political and financial costs of continuing the war and restrict Trump’s freedom of action, he wrote.
“This matters for Iran’s calculations, but it should not lead to a strategic miscalculation, because the outcome of the war and the question of the Strait of Hormuz will not be determined solely by the composition of Congress,” Heydari wrote.
“The elections may change the rules of Trump’s game, but resolving the confrontation with Iran requires decisions and agreements that go beyond the US ballot box.”
Amirali Abolfath, a US affairs expert, similarly cautioned against expecting a change in congressional control to end the conflict.
“We should not place too much hope in the idea that a change in the composition of Congress alone will bring the war to a halt, although these changes are not without effect and should not be viewed in absolute, black-and-white terms,” he told ISNA.
