AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): The US and Zionist regime's war against Iran has entered a highly sensitive strategic phase for the US administration, and at the same time, a noticeable change in the White House's rhetoric is visible. After months of promising a swift and decisive victory, the language of US President Donald Trump has shifted toward indefinite timeframes and postponed deadlines. Deadlines that are directly linked to the US congressional midterm elections scheduled for early next November.
According to a report by Al Jazeera Net, this shift in approach comes as the field and regional situation is complex. The US war against Iran is on the verge of entering its seventh month, without a military victory having been achieved. At the same time, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed to ship traffic, and maritime threats in the Bab al-Mandab Strait have expanded. On the other hand, waves of inflation and rising prices continue to pressure the budgets of American households.
Experts and politicians in Washington, in interviews with Al Jazeera Net about the nature of this shift in approach, have offered differing views. A broad current believes this delay reflects a strategic deadlock in which America has been unable to translate its military superiority into results, and the war has become a costly war of attrition. A situation that pushes the American Republican Party toward a major defeat at the ballot box in this country.
In contrast, another current views Trump's behavior as a smart maneuver that relies on tools of gradually suffocating Iran's economy and prevents entering a ground quagmire before the US elections. With the hope that after the ballot boxes close in America, the war against Iran will resume to achieve a final result.
The American Citizen Between the Election Trap and the High Cost of Living
The US congressional midterm elections have become the most important factor in the calculations of the US administration. American decision-makers are now facing a kind of public referendum on the costs of the war against Iran and its economic consequences, or the degree of success of this war.
When American foreign policy directly affects the pockets of the country's citizens and the prices of goods, it becomes a determining factor in shaping American public opinion and determining the fate of the party that holds the majority.
Therefore, Osama Abu Arshid, a writer and political researcher residing in Washington, examines the dilemma facing Trump. According to him, the American Republican Party, due to the war against Iran and its consequences, including the rapid rise in inflation and the decline in the purchasing power of American citizens, faces the risk of a heavy electoral defeat.
Abu Arshid tells Al Jazeera Net that estimates show 37 percent of American families pay their monthly expenses using credit cards. That is, more than one-third of American society has turned to borrowing to meet basic living needs.
He adds that polls now raise the possibility of Republicans losing their majority in the US House of Representatives and even the possibility of losing the Senate. A situation that could paralyze Trump's legislative agenda and plunge him into exhausting conflicts with Democrats over the budget and public policies.
Trump Is Seeking to Buy Time Until the Elections
As a result of these concerns, Trump is trying to remobilize his traditional base with optimistic promises about price reductions after the elections.
Abu Arshid considers these promises to lack real credibility and believes their main goal is to create hope among hesitant and dissatisfied independent voters and, as a result, reduce the dimensions of a possible political defeat.
This analysis aligns with the view of Michael Hanna, director of the US program at the International Crisis Group. He believes Trump has always tried to guide public opinion and markets with statements that are distant from military and diplomatic realities.
According to Hanna, the war against Iran has become completely unpopular, and its economic costs have placed great pressure on voters.
He adds that these very factors have made the US President very cautious about returning to an all-out war, because he fears its political consequences. In these circumstances, Trump is counting on creating a relative and temporary calm until next November, while simultaneously seeking to continue economic pressure on Iran through sanctions and low-intensity field conflicts.
A Different Narrative: Trump Is Executing a Smart Maneuver
In contrast, David DeRoche, a former US Department of Defense official, considers the indefinite timeframes Trump announces to be part of a smart maneuver.
He believes Trump's experience at the beginning of the war, when he set a two-week deadline to achieve a final result but did not honor it, has caused the US President this time to avoid any hard and binding timetable. A timetable that could have limited his freedom of action and exposed him to political pressure for not fulfilling time promises.
DeRoche emphasizes that the Republican base essentially wants discussion of the war against Iran to be reduced as much as possible to lower its electoral costs.
According to him, Trump has also tried for this purpose to downplay the importance of the battles and say that the war against Iran does not bother him. He has been somewhat successful in this regard and has managed to keep news related to the war against Iran away from the top of American media.
DeRoche also points to the US administration's success in containing the inflationary effects of the war and claims that gasoline prices have remained several dollars per gallon lower than the level predicted when the Strait of Hormuz was closed.
He also points to the stability of Wall Street at unprecedented levels, which, according to him, has refuted hypotheses about financial collapse.
The Dilemma of Attrition and Inability to Achieve Victory
But American policy also faces another dilemma that goes beyond the issue of delay and promises and relates to the heart of field challenges.
America's air superiority has not been able to bring a war that has now taken on regional and complex dimensions to a conclusion. About seven months of war against Iran have shown that airstrikes have reached their maximum capacity but have not been able to break Tehran's resistance.
Now Washington faces the dilemma of a ground invasion and its heavy costs.
Scott Lucas, a professor of political science and international relations at the University of Birmingham, explains this field dilemma as America being unable to determine the fate of the war on the ground, either due to lacking the necessary military depth on the ground or due to a conscious decision to avoid escalation given the catastrophic dimensions of possible risks.
Why Won't Washington Enter a Ground War?
Lucas tells Al Jazeera Net that in late March and early April, important discussions took place at the Pentagon about the possibility of transferring operations from airstrikes to ground operations, including operations against Kharg oil island.
But the US military command strongly warned about the difficulty of defeating Iranian forces in ground operations and announced that Iran's missile response could be so extensive that America's defense interceptor missile stockpiles would not be sufficient to counter it and protect vital bases.
Osama Abu Arshid also presents this view and says America's problem is not the lack of absolute military capability, but the lack of national will to mobilize these capabilities.
According to him, the current war against Iran is a war of choice that does not directly threaten America's national existence. Seriously entering such a war would have required turning the American economy into a war economy and dedicating car factories to ammunition production. An action Trump does not have the constitutional and political authority to carry out.
This political researcher residing in Washington also cites reports from the New York Times, according to which Trump began the war relying on the delusional notions of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about a quick and easy victory.
He emphasizes that any extensive military mobilization to attack Iran could severely erode America's power and remove the country from strategic competition with China and Russia.
However, DeRoche disagrees with this analysis and believes America's military restraint is a temporary phase dictated by electoral conditions.
From his perspective, Trump prefers to act cautiously before the elections and focus on his economic achievements to avoid escalation, but immediately after the elections end, he will reassess the field situation and resume the war against Iran with greater intensity.
According to DeRoche, Trump could then benefit from Iran's economic erosion. An erosion that, according to him, is manifesting in a daily decline of about 10 percent in the value of Iran's rial.
Siege; Strategic Erosion or Political Confusion?
Among experts, the question remains disputed whether Washington is executing a calculated plan to gradually erode Iran or is caught in war management that lacks a strategic vision and the necessary tools to achieve victory.
David DeRoche believes Trump's policy does not indicate confusion in decision-making but is based on the principles of classic American grand strategy. A strategy that employs economic siege simultaneously with military pressure to prevent the other side's advance.
He refers to historical examples for this view. From the blockade of the southern American states in the Civil War to prevent their advance and economic collapse, to the naval blockade of the German Empire in World War I, which, despite the German army's control over vast areas of Europe, ultimately contributed to Berlin's internal collapse.
He also refers to the blockade of Japan and depriving the country of fuel in World War II.
This former American official emphasizes that the intensification of primary and secondary sanctions against Iran is the core of this cumulative strategy.
From his perspective, the difference between Trump's statements—sometimes threatening war and sometimes focusing on the economy—is nothing but managing multiple tracks simultaneously, and the US President highlights one of them depending on the day's conditions.
In contrast, Scott Lucas rejects this approach and believes the US administration fundamentally lacks a coherent tactic and strategy to link its tools with final objectives.
He questions the White House's policy. A policy that has avoided punishing China, which continues to buy Iranian oil. From Lucas's perspective, this very issue has left the economic siege of Iran incomplete.
He emphasizes that Trump creates an alternative reality for voters and claims control of the Strait of Hormuz and prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. While the facts indicate the Strait of Hormuz remains closed.
Also, Yemeni attacks on Saudi Arabia, including the attack on the "East-West" pipeline in Saudi Arabia, have continued. An issue that, according to Lucas, has called into question the narrative of controlling the situation and demonstrates the lack of a coherent vision.
Michael Hanna also, in an interview with Al Jazeera Net, warns about what can be called a rebound dilemma.
According to him, the more apparently successful the economic pressure, the greater Iran's motivation to break this temporary calm. Because Tehran knows the importance of the American political calendar and, if necessary, will use its effective tools and escalate tensions to damage the chances of American Republicans in the upcoming elections.
Buying Time and Eroding the Republican Majority
In circumstances where the prospect of a quick victory has vanished, Trump has turned to unprecedented financial promises to motivate American voters. An issue that has given analysts the opportunity to examine his personal motivations and their connection to the supreme interests of the country.
DeRoche considers Trump's promise to pay $5,000 to every adult American citizen if Republicans maintain control of both houses of Congress to be a safe bet.
The Republican majority in the US House of Representatives is very fragile, with only three seats more than Democrats. While estimates and polls indicate the possibility of Democrats winning at least 10 seats.
The former Pentagon official explains that Trump has raised this incentive in circumstances where he is fully aware that the necessary conditions for its realization may not be met. As a result, he frees himself from the burden of fulfilling this promise and the structural financial crises it could cause, which could pressure Republicans for years.
DeRoche ultimately concludes that Trump cares more about his personal legacy than about the Republican Party.
Therefore, according to him, Trump will continue the war against Iran after the midterm elections as a matter related to his personal legacy and will leave its political consequences for Republican candidates in the 2028 presidential election.
Trump Is Buying Time, But Has No Exit
However, this approach will have heavy consequences for America's domestic and foreign policy.
Abu Arshid warns that Trump is buying time without having a real exit.
According to him, withdrawing without achieving a result, in circumstances where Iran still controls Hormuz and threats continue in the Bab al-Mandab Strait, will consolidate Iran's influence in global trade.
In such circumstances, Trump may be recorded in history as the owner of a stupid war. Similar to the description he himself previously used for the wars of previous American presidents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Scott Lucas also concludes by emphasizing that the image Trump wants to present of American power has been damaged at the regional level.
According to him, the capitals of the Persian Gulf countries feel frustrated because Washington has not completed its mission after starting the war against Iran. This situation has weakened the historical freedom of international shipping and opened the way for Beijing to expand its regional cooperation and fill the strategic vacuum caused by American hesitation.
The Iran War; An Issue Postponed Until After the Elections
The summary of the views presented shows that Donald Trump's extension of deadlines and linking the fate of the war against Iran to the midterm elections is, more than a sign of a victory strategy, a forced postponement of a deadlock until after the ballot boxes.
Whether the elections lead to Democrats gaining power and paralyzing the Trump administration's hand, or push Trump toward a hasty military adventure to save his personal legacy, the reality is that election promises cannot eliminate Iran's difficult geography or the crisis of missile and ammunition shortages.
The cost of attrition, the decline in deterrence power, and the inability to achieve a final result have now become bills that Washington will inevitably have to pay. Bills that can no longer be ignored after the dust of the elections settles and the regional and international consequences of the war against Iran become apparent.
**************
End/ 345E
