Key facts
- Neither the US nor Iran appears prepared to retreat from their current conflict.
- Iran is betting on outlasting the US, using disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb Strait to keep oil prices high.
- A University of Massachusetts Amherst poll found 80% of Americans believe the Iran war has increased the cost of gas and groceries.
- A Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Democrats leading Republicans on the generic congressional ballot.
- US political forecasting website Race to the White House gives Democrats an 84% chance of taking the House and over 68% chance of taking the Senate.
- House Republicans narrowly approved a budget blueprint paving the way for $73bn in additional defense and intelligence spending tied to the Iran war.
- In 1973, Congress used a similar tactic to force President Richard Nixon to accept a cutoff of US combat operations in Indochina.
The ongoing conflict between the US and Iran is at a stalemate, with neither side prepared to retreat. For US President Donald Trump, backing down would undermine his narrative of victory, while Iran views the conflict as existential and fears that ending it without restoring deterrence would invite further assault. This deadlock may ultimately be resolved not on the battlefield, but through the US electoral process.
Iran is reportedly betting on outlasting the US by sustaining pressure on critical energy arteries like the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. This strategy aims to keep oil prices elevated, impacting gasoline, diesel, freight, and grocery costs for Americans. A University of Massachusetts Amherst poll indicated that 80% of Americans believe the war has increased these prices. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll also showed Democrats leading Republicans on the generic congressional ballot, suggesting the war's economic consequences are hurting Republican support.
Political forecasting website Race to the White House projects an 84% chance of Democrats taking the House and over 68% chance of them taking the Senate, a significant shift from earlier predictions. Democrats have been attempting to end the war through congressional measures, including multiple War Powers Resolution votes in the Senate and House. Last week, seven Republicans joined Democrats in a House vote directing Trump to remove US forces from hostilities with Iran unless authorized by Congress.
However, even a Democratic victory in Congress might not immediately end the war, as Trump could veto a joint resolution. Overriding such a veto would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers, which is considered unlikely. A more potent tool for Democrats would be Congress's power of the purse. The House approved a $95bn budget blueprint that includes roughly $73bn for defense and intelligence spending tied to the Iran war. Republicans hope to pass this through reconciliation, requiring only a simple majority in the Senate.
The narrow margin in the House on the budget resolution, which passed 216-214, highlights Republican vulnerability. Previous votes on War Powers Resolutions have seen Republican defections, indicating dissent within the party over continuing the war without congressional authorization. If voters punish Republicans for the war's economic impact in the upcoming elections, newly elected or re-elected members, especially from competitive districts, may be incentivized to distance themselves from the conflict.
Should Republicans lose control of Congress, they would retain power during the lame-duck session until January 3, 2027. However, the timeline for securing the $73bn funding package could work against them, as Pentagon CFO Jules Hurst indicated that final budget decisions might not occur until December or even into the new calendar year. This leaves Republicans with a limited window to push through the funding before power changes hands.
Drawing a parallel to the Vietnam War, a Democratic Congress could potentially attach restrictions on funding offensive operations against Iran to essential spending legislation. This approach could force Trump to veto funding for the Pentagon or the wider government, a more perilous move than vetoing a standalone antiwar measure, potentially compelling him to accept a cutoff similar to the one faced by President Nixon in 1973.