The war involving Iran, which Donald Trump initially said would be short, has run past the six-month mark and is beginning to shape the mood ahead of November’s midterm elections, particularly in closely fought House and Senate races. Mike Gibbons, a 33-year-old restaurant server in eastern Pennsylvania, said he is considering voting for Democrats for the first time since he sat out the 2020 presidential election. Two years ago, he said he struggled with supporting Republican Donald Trump and felt Democrats did not take a harder line on Israel’s war in Gaza. This year, as the Iran conflict continues and fuel prices rise, he is more focused on day-to-day costs than foreign policy. Gibbons said the price of petrol is about $1 per gallon higher than last year, and that higher transport costs feed into prices for other essentials even though his wages have not increased. He plans to vote for any Democratic candidate he can, adding that the impact of the war is being felt locally. War Expected To End Quickly Now Drags OnTrump’s early messaging that the conflict would last only weeks has been overtaken by events. The longer duration has undermined a campaign line that sought to keep attention away from foreign entanglements and has also put pressure on Republicans who would prefer to concentrate on domestic issues, including tax cuts, while they hold narrow majorities in Congress. In voter interviews, people described how the war’s economic spillover is competing with other political concerns. While Trump supporters appear largely unmoved, the combination of unpopularity around the war and higher costs could influence results in districts where margins are small. One example is Bethlehem in eastern Pennsylvania, where Republican Representative Ryan Mackenzie is among the party’s most vulnerable incumbents heading into the midterms. Public Doubts Widen Beyond Partisan LinesNationwide polling shows broad scepticism. About two-thirds of US adults say the Iran war has not been worth fighting, according to a July survey by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. The view spans most Democrats and independents and also includes more than a third of Republicans. Trump has continued to defend the conflict’s direction while rejecting the idea that Americans should focus on its costs. He has said he would “never apologise” for higher prices linked to the war and argued that the administration acted to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. This week, his government announced additional sanctions aimed at further isolating Tehran. The administration has also relied on actions abroad rather than building sustained public support at home. The article notes that, unlike George W. Bush’s pre-war approach for Iraq, Trump did not spend an extended period laying out a coalition or arguing publicly for the likelihood of a long campaign. Republicans Split Quietly As Democrats Try To Reframe ItWithin Congress, Republican support has shifted from enthusiasm for Trump’s Iran moves to more frequent worry about the toll. Even so, the party has largely stayed united against measures that would limit the president’s war powers. Leaders have also shown little appetite for cutting off funding for the conflict, while seeking to portray Democrats as unable to manage the economy and national security. Democrats see an opportunity to reset blame on Republicans. As part of Sherrod Brown’s comeback bid for the US Senate in Ohio, he released an advertisement filmed at a gas station portraying fuel prices as a burden on households. In western Maryland, Democratic Senator Angela Alsobrooks similarly pointed to higher prices as a consequence of the war and urged Democrats to keep attention on what she frames as Trump’s leadership record. But there is also a risk for Democrats: some voters remain willing to adjust to higher costs without attributing them to Republican leaders, while others do not want Democrats to regain power. In North Carolina, for instance, a farm owner said she trusts Trump and argued that opposition figures would not be campaigning against him without broader reasons. In Iowa, a Republican said gas prices are part of the economic “nature of the beast” and backed keeping Republicans in control. Other voters offered a more mixed picture. In Bakersfield, California, a fast-food worker described gas costs as adding to financial pressure and said he planned to support a Democrat’s challenge. An older retiree said she was surprised by a recent rise at the pump and emphasised the need to manage household budgets. In Arizona, a retired electronics salesman said he had expected the conflict to end sooner and suggested that any later impact could come through sanctions. In Virginia, a 26-year-old said rising fuel costs and concerns about the ability to retire have not yet resolved his choice between parties. Join the discussion? 27 August 2026
View full article
