Middle East Tensions Mount as US Midterms and Regional Stalemates Loom Over Iran Policy
As the United States enters the midterm elections, the administration of President Donald Trump faces a complex and unresolved conflict with Iran, prompting international analysts to examine the key factors that could dictate whether the region moves toward war or peace.
Political experts interviewed include Omid Memarian of DAWN, a Washington-based think tank focused on reforming U.S. Middle East policy; Finland-based political scientist Leila Morovati; and Babak Rezaeedaryakenari, a professor of international relations at Leiden University in the Netherlands. Reports from the news agency, citing three senior Iranian officials and an additional source, suggest that Tehran has deliberately prolonged talks in an effort to weaken Trump politically.
A Democratic victory in the U.S. midterms would likely force Trump to pivot toward domestic priorities and expose the financial burdens of the conflict within Congress, according to Memarian. However, Memarian noted that Trump retains the power to carry out limited strikes without a formal declaration of war and would seek an exit strategy that “saves face.” Engaging with Trump presents a unique gamble for Iran, Memarian added, because the U.S. leader “does not behave like a conventional politician,” elevating the danger of renewed hostilities.
Rezaeedaryakenari emphasized that the U.S. president holds sweeping authority over foreign policy and military operations, meaning a Republican congressional defeat would not automatically halt new attacks. Meanwhile, Iran’s nuclear program remains a central point of contention. The U.S. rejects Tehran’s civilian-use narrative and demands concessions from the outset of negotiations, whereas Iran insists on the lifting of sanctions and the release of frozen assets before discussions begin. Morovati described the nuclear program as the “crux” of the standoff, serving as both a survival guarantee for Tehran and a major security concern for Washington.
Political instability in Israel adds another volatile layer to the crisis. Israel’s October 27 election concluded in deadlock, leaving neither incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor former IDF chief Gadi Eisenkot with an outright majority. Memarian warned that this uncertainty could drive Netanyahu to take decisive action while still in power, creating a highly fragile transition period. While a change in Israeli leadership might alter the timing of a confrontation or improve coordination with Washington, Memarian argued it would not fundamentally alter Israel’s core Iran policy. Rezaeedaryakenari echoed that Israel’s security concerns extend beyond Netanyahu personally, though a new government could adjust how closely Jerusalem coordinates with the United States.
In the maritime domain, energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz have been heavily disrupted. Before the U.S. and Israel launched military operations in late February, roughly 20% of the world’s oil transited the naval chokepoint. Iran has since sharply curtailed energy exports through the corridor to exert leverage, though Memarian noted these restrictions are unlikely to trigger escalation independently unless used as a pretext by Washington. Alternatively, if the U.S. views the risks of a broader offensive as too high, it might implement an economic blockade while keeping diplomatic channels open.
In Yemen, Houthi rebels have continued targeting energy exports and regional infrastructure in the Red Sea and Saudi cities. Memarian characterizes the Houthi movement as having domestic and organic roots despite its ideological alignment with Tehran, noting that their pragmatic calculations do not automatically translate into direct escalation between Iran and the U.S. Conversely, Rezaeedaryakenari suggested that Houthi attacks on shipping and regional states could widen the conflict and accelerate coalition-building among nations seeking to protect their trade, potentially narrowing Tehran’s maneuvering room.
With direct bilateral talks stalled, attention has turned to regional mediators including Qatar, Oman, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Morovati observed that Washington’s failure to adequately support Arab allies during the conflict could eventually prompt those nations to reassess their alliances and look toward U.S. rivals. Economically, the war’s ninth month has brought high oil prices, shipping risks, and heavy strain on all participants. While Morovati termed the economy the “Achilles’ heel” of every party involved, Memarian suggested that both Washington and Tehran currently believe that inflicting further pain will improve their standing in future talks, keeping the sides locked in a protracted war of attrition.
