Iran War Puts Washington’s Military Power on the Ballot

US forces struck Iran’s Qeshm Island on Tuesday as Americans voted, and President Donald Trump is weighing whether to resume major military operations or pursue negotiations. US officials called the strikes “defensive.” The election changed who controls Congress; it hasn’t settled who gets to decide whether the attacks continue.

Vice President JD Vance blamed the war for Republicans’ defeat in Tuesday’s midterm elections, where Democrats won both chambers of Congress. “The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night,” Vance wrote on X on Wednesday. He asked whether losing the Senate “for the next 6 years” had been worth it, then argued that any honest discussion of the way forward must begin with the war. His post made the conflict an open fight inside the party, not just a military operation directed at Tehran.

Trump called Vance’s assessment “largely true” and linked the Republican loss to higher fuel and gasoline prices associated with the war. He also defended launching the war alongside Israel in February. “I did the right thing. I would have done it again,” he told The Wall Street Journal. Asked when he would end the war, he said: “Whenever I wanted to. But it’s got to be done right, because they can’t have a nuclear weapon.” The decision about when to stop, in that account, remains with the president.

The price of the decision

The US attack triggered a global fuel crisis after the Strait of Hormuz closed, and the conflict has cost US taxpayers an estimated $47bn so far. Senator Ted Cruz, described as a longtime Iran hawk, said the war “should have been brief, decisive, and over.” He also said it had “dragged on too long,” while opposing a proposed $300bn fund to help rebuild post-war Iran. That fund appeared in a June memorandum of understanding signed by Washington and Tehran, which included a proposed ceasefire. The agreement quickly fell apart.

Vance has questioned whether the war was worth its political cost. The Wall Street Journal reported that he opposed it from the outset despite publicly defending the administration’s military actions. He has taken part in negotiations with Tehran and privately advised Trump to seek an agreement, warning about the consequences of prolonging the conflict. Citing an unnamed pollster, Vance said ending the war and “changing our relationship with Israel” were among the top four responses from people who voted for Trump in 2024 but planned to vote Democratic this year.

Paul Musgrave, associate professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, described “major internal divisions within the Republican Party.” He said hawks such as Cruz and the late Senator Lindsey Graham had long pushed for war, and that they now faced a conflict that “has been a disaster internationally and domestically for them.” But, Musgrave added, “they can’t walk away”; they can mainly criticize its length and execution. He described Vance’s position as an effort to represent a more isolationist wing and said the dispute was about “positioning for 2028 and the future of the Republican Party.”

Congress holds the purse, Trump holds a veto

Democrats say they’ll use control of Congress to press for an end to the war and scrutinize the administration. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer pointed to Congress’s control of funding: “The Founding Fathers had the power of the purse as one of the ways of deterring a president who does war without the consent of the American people.” Congressman Ro Khanna proposed a continuing resolution “prohibiting the financing of any combat activities of the US military in Iran.”

The funding lever has limits. John Feehery, a former Republican congressional staffer, said the defence budget and an extension of the debt limit would need bipartisan support. Trump would retain veto power, so control of Congress alone wouldn’t give Democrats authority to end the war. The War Powers Act requires presidents to obtain congressional permission before launching a war overseas, but many presidents have circumvented it. Musgrave expects more fights over the administration’s refusal to obey congressional spending limits than over that law.

Strikes, blockade, negotiations

US officials are debating whether to escalate military operations or continue economic pressure while negotiating. The Wall Street Journal reported that some officials advocated more strikes; Axios reported that the military was preparing for a possible resumption of major combat operations, including deploying additional military assets. Other officials favor a naval blockade of Iranian ports and sanctions while assessing whether Tehran will reach an agreement. CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent were reported to support continued pressure rather than an immediate return to large-scale strikes.

Qatar is seeking US and Iranian approval for a draft agreement intended to prevent another major escalation and potentially restart direct negotiations. Talks remain divided over Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions and arrangements involving the Strait of Hormuz. Majed al-Ansari, a spokesperson for Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said Washington and Tehran “remain committed to the negotiation process.” Iran called the latest US response to its conditions for reopening the strait “unconvincing.” Trump hasn’t announced whether he’ll expand the campaign. Tehran has promised to respond to attacks, while the people living under the decisions of governments and militaries remain outside the room where those decisions are made.