As the US war on Iran drags on and economic pressures mount at home, President Donald Trump is confronting a growing political dilemma ahead of the 2026 midterm elections: a conflict with no clear exit strategy and weakening enthusiasm within key segments of the Republican electorate.
Washington increasingly views the two crises as inseparable. A prolonged confrontation with Iran is weighing on fuel prices and economic confidence, while also undermining Trump’s image as a leader who promised decisive victories. At the same time, Republicans face a midterm cycle that could become a broader referendum on Trump’s handling of the war, the economy, and executive power.
American newspapers and political analysts describe the convergence as a dual test for Trump’s presidency, particularly as signs emerge that parts of the Republican base are losing momentum — especially voters who neither fully belong to the “MAGA” movement nor align with the party’s anti-Trump wing.
In an opinion article published by The New York Times, Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson argued that the Republican Party’s most immediate electoral threat does not come from Trump’s loyal MAGA base or from anti-Trump conservatives who have effectively left the camp, but from what she describes as “regular Republicans.”
According to Anderson, these voters remain clearly conservative and strongly opposed to the Democratic Party, yet they do not primarily define themselves as Trump supporters.
She wrote that this bloc—estimated to make up roughly half of Republican voters—still broadly supports Trump, but no longer with the level of enthusiasm the party needs heading into the midterms.
Polling cited by Anderson shows that the share of Republicans holding a “very favorable” view of Trump has fallen by around 10 percentage points over the past year. Only 44% of Republicans strongly approve of his handling of the economy.
More striking, she argues, is the widening enthusiasm gap within the party. Among Republicans who primarily identify as Trump supporters, 62% say they are highly motivated to vote. However, among voters who primarily identify as Republicans rather than Trump loyalists, that figure drops to just 49%.
Republican Apathy Raises Alarm
Anderson framed the numbers as a warning sign for Republicans, noting that Democrats appear significantly more energized by the prospect of blocking Trump’s political agenda.
In her polling, 82% of Democrats said winning the midterm elections was “extremely important,” compared with only 57% of Republicans overall—a figure that drops further to 47% among traditional party Republicans rather than committed Trump supporters.
She linked the decline in enthusiasm to several issues, foremost among them the economy. Among Republicans who identify more with the party than with Trump personally, only 29% strongly approve of his economic performance, and fewer than half believe the economy is improving.
The same group also appears increasingly uneasy with the party’s handling of healthcare, foreign policy, and the state of American democracy, which may contribute to their overall dissatisfaction and reluctance to support Trump in the upcoming elections.
It is through this lens that the Iran conflict is entering the electoral equation. Anderson notes that only about one-third of these voters strongly support US military operations against Iran.
The finding suggests that the war — which Trump has sought to portray as evidence of strength against America’s adversaries — is not automatically translating into political capital within his own party, particularly if the conflict drags on without a clear victory or if rising energy prices continue to squeeze voters.
The Political Cost of War
That assessment aligns with reporting by The Daily Beast, which cited author Michael Wolff as saying that White House officials and Trump’s political team are monitoring oil prices “minute by minute” to gauge the war’s political fallout.
According to Wolff, those around Trump “do not know” how to end the conflict or manage it politically, even as the president continues to insist publicly that events are unfolding successfully.
The outlet reported that the average price of gasoline in the United States had climbed to $4.48 per gallon—roughly $1.50 higher than before Trump launched military operations against Iran on February 28.
The publication also cited a poll conducted by The Washington Post in partnership with ABC News and Ipsos, which found that 61% of Americans believe the use of military force against Iran was a mistake, compared with just 36% who viewed it as the right decision.
The survey further showed Trump’s disapproval rating reaching 62% — the highest level recorded across either of his presidencies, according to the report.
The Daily Beast added that the conflict has so far failed to generate the traditional “rally around the flag” effect that accompanied previous US wars in their early stages. Instead, public opposition emerged rapidly and on a broad scale.
For Republicans heading into 2026, Iran is increasingly becoming a double political liability: an unpopular war on one hand and rising living costs reflected daily at gas stations on the other.
A Ceasefire in Name Only
Meanwhile, The Intercept focused on a sharper legal and political dimension, arguing that the Trump administration continues to insist a ceasefire remains in place despite ongoing clashes between US and Iranian forces.
The outlet quoted General Dan Caine as saying that since the ceasefire announcement, Iran has fired on commercial vessels nine times, seized two container ships, and attacked US forces more than 10 times. Despite that, he maintained that the incidents remain “below the threshold” for resuming major combat operations.
When Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked whether the ceasefire had effectively collapsed following exchanges of fire between the two sides, he replied, “No. The ceasefire has not ended,” according to the report.
The Intercept argued that the administration’s insistence is not merely rhetorical but tied directly to the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which places time limits on military operations conducted without congressional authorization.
The report noted that Hegseth told the Senate Armed Services Committee that, under the administration’s interpretation, the ceasefire pauses or suspends the 60-day clock imposed by the law.
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine rejected that interpretation, warning of “serious constitutional concerns” and arguing that the law does not support the administration’s position.
In that sense, the ceasefire appears less like a genuine halt to hostilities than a mechanism for keeping the war below the threshold of formal acknowledgment. The administration declares victory and insists the ceasefire holds, even as ongoing attacks and military exchanges suggest the conflict remains active in practice, if suspended in political language.
Hundreds of farms can’t survive under Trump. His chaotic economic policies—including his tariffs and war against Iran, which have driven up costs and caused a fertilizer crisis—are hurting our farmers. I’ll keep doing all I can to reverse this trend. pic.twitter.com/V7tF0R9Xx9
— Senator Tim Kaine (@SenTimKaine) May 6, 2026
The Shadow of the 2026 Elections
Yet the most serious dimension of the 2026 crisis, according to columnist Thomas Edsall writing in The New York Times, is not simply whether the war will cost Republicans congressional seats but how Trump might respond if defeat appears imminent.
Edsall places the midterm elections within Trump’s long history of rejecting unfavorable outcomes, recalling past remarks in which the president claimed his administration had been so successful that the country “shouldn’t even have elections.”
The article reviews a series of statements and actions that Edsall argues reflect an expanding view of presidential authority—from Trump’s repeated claims that he possesses powers “people don’t even know about” to assertions that only his “morality” and “self-restraint” prevent him from exercising them fully.
It also revisits Trump’s repeated allegations of “rigged elections” and his calls for federal intervention in state-run election processes.
Edsall cites warnings from experts and organizations including the Brennan Center for Justice and Keep Our Republic over the possible use of emergency powers and executive authority during a politically volatile election cycle.
Particular attention is given to Presidential National Security Memorandum 7, which Edsall says grants the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and other agencies broad authority to target left-wing groups accused of ties to political violence or “domestic terrorism.”
The report notes that federal law lacks a clear legal definition for a “domestic terrorist organization,” citing concerns raised by legal analyst Joel McCleary.
Drawing on the views of experts including Elizabeth Goitein and McCleary, Edsall argues that the danger lies not in any single measure but in the accumulation of executive powers: presidential memoranda that operate with less transparency than executive orders, potential emergency declarations, and secret presidential emergency directives that could be activated during major crises.
The article stops short of claiming Trump will inevitably take such steps. But it outlines scenarios that experts consider deeply troubling if the president were to challenge or obstruct the outcome of the 2026 elections.
Two-Faced Delimma
Taken together, these assessments suggest that the Iran war and the 2026 midterm elections are not two separate crises for President Donald Trump, but two interconnected pressures feeding into one another.
The conflict is driving up oil and fuel prices, eroding Trump’s economic standing, and weakening enthusiasm among Republicans who do not see themselves as part of the MAGA movement. At the same time, the approaching elections are turning every wartime decision into a domestic political calculation: Will Trump appear strong or reckless? Victorious or trapped? Capable of ending the war — or forced to deny that it is still continuing?
In The New York Times, Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson warned that if “regular Republicans” stay home in 2026, the party could face an electoral disaster.
In the same newspaper, columnist Thomas Edsall argued that Trump’s fear of defeat could push the administration toward actions that pose deeper risks to democratic institutions and the electoral process itself.
Meanwhile, The Intercept and The Daily Beast place the war itself at the center of the crisis: a ceasefire in name only, rising fuel costs, an administration struggling to define an exit strategy, and a president insisting that everything remains under control.
Trump, therefore, is not facing one foreign-policy crisis in Iran and another domestic crisis tied to the 2026 elections. He is confronting a single dilemma with two inseparable fronts.
Escalating the war risks deepening its political and economic costs. Pulling back, however, threatens the image of strength on which Trump has built much of his political identity.
Between those two pressures lies the question increasingly haunting the White House — one less about military strategy than political survival: how can Trump enter the 2026 elections without the Iran war becoming a referendum on his entire presidency?
Source: Al-Jazeera Net (Edited and translated by Al-Manar English)