Trump weighs quick end to Iran war

Washington: President Donald Trump has once again threatened military action against Iran, sparking concerns about public backing for the war and congressional ability to curb further escalation. With the midterm elections looming on November 3, polls indicate significant discontent with the ongoing conflict, especially due to surging fuel costs and the risk to American servicemen and women.

Reports of renewed US-Israeli military planning have also fueled worries about possible strikes following the elections. Trump's latest threat was made at a rally in Florida on Friday, stating "We may do another little Epic Fury," without specifying a timeline for a potential operation. This followed an ABC News report on Thursday that the US military and Israel Defense Forces had outlined options for renewed joint strikes, likely after the midterms.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly, however, asserted that the US would not launch an attack on Iran before the midterm elections. These reports suggest the possibility of additional military action, but they do not confirm Trump's authorization of an attack. Negotiations remain an alternative. In a report on October 23, James M. Lindsay, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, presented three options for Trump: escalate the conflict, negotiate with Iran, or maintain the current stance.

Lindsay noted that all options carry substantial drawbacks and uncertain success rates. Further attacks may escalate tensions with Iran but could prolong the conflict without achieving a political resolution. Negotiations would necessitate bridging the gap between the two nations, while maintaining the current approach might leave the situation unresolved.

Andrew Payne, research director for Europe, Russia, and the Americas at Chatham House, argued in a October 15 analysis that foreign policy could play a unique role in this year's midterm elections, as the war's economic ramifications could sway voters focused on domestic issues, particularly the rising cost of living. A Pew Research Centre survey conducted from September 28 to October 4 found that 65% disapproved of Trump's handling of the military action, while 33% approved.

The survey also revealed that 73% were extremely or very concerned about higher fuel prices, and 71% about American troops being injured or killed. Nearly half expected the military action to continue for over a year. A separate Associated Press-NORC poll published on October 22 found that about seven in ten registered voters wanted the next Congress to prioritize ending the Iran war, with eight in ten prioritizing reducing the cost of living.

These findings suggest mounting pressure on the administration to address the war's duration and economic consequences. However, dissatisfaction with Trump's approach does not necessarily mean voters would oppose all potential military operations. Can Congress restrain Trump? Congress can review military operations, hold oversight hearings, and utilize its control over federal spending to influence the conflict's course.

Lawmakers can also invoke the War Powers Resolution to challenge military action, requiring the president to inform Congress when US forces enter hostilities and establish procedures for lawmakers to consider whether the action should continue. Funding could become crucial if the conflict escalates, as Congress can approve, restrict, or condition military spending, potentially increasing the political costs of a prolonged campaign.

The extent of congressional pressure would depend on whether Republicans remain aligned with Trump. If some Republican lawmakers join Democrats in questioning the war, the administration could face heightened scrutiny of its objectives and plans for resolving the conflict. Even a congressional challenge would not automatically prevent the president from ordering another strike.

The question after November 3 is whether Trump will stick to his stated position against attacking Iran before the midterms. The broader issue is whether the election results will modify the political constraints on his decisions. The reported military planning and Trump's recent remarks keep the possibility of renewed strikes alive, but neither confirms an attack is scheduled.

A shift in control of either chamber of Congress could impact oversight and funding debates, though it would not automatically prevent further military action. It remains unclear whether the combined pressures of public dissatisfaction, economic concerns, and congressional scrutiny will lead Trump towards negotiations or renewed strikes.