Republican candidates in the midterm elections have expressed fears that the war with Iran, which President Donald Trump promised to avoid, could become the biggest political challenge facing the Republican Party ahead of the November elections.

With renewed mutual strikes and dozens of sites targeted, concerns are growing within Republican circles that the party may be forced to defend a war that was not part of its campaign promises, at a time when voters continue to show greater concern about rising prices and living costs than foreign policy issues.

Trump's contradictory statements about the future of the military campaign against Iran have raised anxiety levels. In response to a question about whether the United States would return to large-scale military operations, Trump said: 'I don't know. They (the Iranians) very much want to make a deal. But I don't know if they are worthy of making a deal, and I don't know if they will stick to it. That's the problem.'

In response to a question about returning to full-scale military conflict, Trump said: 'I don't know. We will win very quickly... We have many ways we can win.' He stressed that any Iranian strike would be met with American strikes 'twenty times' stronger. In remarks on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara on Wednesday evening, Trump said: 'In one day, we can destroy every bridge in Iran. And they won't be able to do anything about it... And if we have to, we will wipe them out. They have desalination plants, and we will destroy them if necessary. And we may take over Kharg Island.'

An Axios report, citing senior administration officials, indicated expectations that military strikes would continue for several days, possibly weeks. Navigation through the strait has come to a near-complete halt again, with Iran's chief negotiator stating that the waterway will not be reopened except by orders from Tehran. The renewed hostilities have caused diesel futures in the United States to rise at their fastest pace in four years, adding to the political burdens on Trump ahead of the midterm elections scheduled for November.

A complex political equation

While the White House praises the success of U.S. strikes against Iran and asserts that they have solidified American deterrence and forced Iran to recalculate, its officials acknowledge that any Iranian attack on U.S. bases or disruption of international navigation would push Washington to a greater response. This could increase the risks of a gradual slide into a war that was not part of the original calculations, but comes amid polls showing a majority of Americans oppose this conflict.

A screenshot from a video released by the U.S. Central Command showing strikes against Iran on July 9 (AFP)

White House spokesperson Olivia Wells defended the U.S. strikes against Iran. In an email responding to questions from Asharq Al-Awsat, she said: 'President Trump does not make these decisions based on fluctuating polls, but rather on the highest interests of the American people.'

Despite the White House's insistence that the U.S. strikes achieved their military objectives, the continuation of operations and the lack of a clear horizon for ending the crisis place the Trump administration before a complex political equation: how to maintain the image of a strong president capable of deterring Iran, without sliding into a long war that could drain popular support and evoke the military experiences that Trump built a large part of his political rhetoric on rejecting?

Republican Concerns

Within the Republican Party, the debate centers not on the success of the military strikes but on their political cost. The longer the confrontation lasts, the greater the fears that it will turn into a war of attrition, causing President Trump's popularity among his electoral base to decline, putting Republican candidates on the defensive during election campaigns, and giving Democrats a weapon to blame Trump and Republicans for the deteriorating economic conditions and the suffering of American families.

The Washington Post noted that the expansion of the military confrontation threatens to drag the U.S. administration into a war that lacks broad popular support, a scenario that raises growing concern within the Republican Party just months before the midterm elections.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson at the Capitol on June 30 (AP)

Most Republicans do not oppose limited strikes against Iran, but many express clear reservations about any slide into a prolonged confrontation.

Republican Representative Ryan McKenzie said the party 'must be very careful not to be dragged into a war without end,' an expression reflecting anxiety within several swing Republican districts that fear the war could become the top issue in the elections, instead of the economy and immigration.

Republican Representative Thomas Massie is leading a move within the House of Representatives to restrict any expansion of military operations against Iran without congressional approval, asserting that entering a new war contradicts the 'America First' philosophy. He wrote on X that 'the United States should work to end the war, not expand it.'

Former Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene warned that continuing the war could cost Republicans the midterm elections. In posts on X, she said Trump 'risks losing part of his popular base if he appears to have abandoned his promises not to engage in foreign wars or seek regime change.'

These positions reflect a divide within the party between those who support a limited military response and others who fear that any further escalation could undermine the political message that brought Trump back to the White House. Rising oil prices due to any disruption in the Strait of Hormuz could directly impact fuel prices inside the United States, meaning additional inflationary pressures, higher transportation and goods costs, and possibly delaying any expected interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve.

Democratic Moves

Democrats have begun to exploit this issue electorally, accusing the Trump administration of launching a military adventure without a clear strategy, arguing that continued escalation would impose new economic burdens on Americans. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (of New Hampshire), the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, described the military developments with Iran as 'a dangerous escalation' and 'clear evidence that the president entered this war without a plan, without a vision for ending the conflict, and without the ability to reach a lasting agreement.'

For his part, Democratic Representative Dan Goldman said the continuation of the war has led to higher air travel costs and energy prices, arguing that the administration broke its promises to lower the cost of living and dragged the United States into a conflict that would have direct repercussions on the American economy. Democrats believe the war gives them an opportunity to reshape their electoral message, so that it is not limited to criticizing Trump's economic policies but also includes accusing him of dragging the United States into a foreign confrontation that lacks popular support.