Why did Trump launch unpopular Iran war despite risk of a midterm polls defeat

For nearly half a century, Donald Trump has built his career by taking major risks to advance his personal interests and political ambitions. Repeatedly breaking with established conventions and the norms of global politics, he has consistently embraced high-stakes gambles. History suggests that, risky as they have been, many of those gambles have paid off. He survived multiple near-bankruptcies to become a billionaire and overcame countless legal and political scandals to be elected President of the United States twice.

But the former casino magnate may now have made the biggest and riskiest bet of his presidency. Just a month ago, Trump described a newly signed ceasefire agreement as the only way to prevent a global economic catastrophe comparable to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Yet less than a month after signing that agreement, he reignited the prospect of a full-scale confrontation with Iran.

Last week, Trump ordered fresh airstrikes on Iranian military and strategic infrastructure. Significantly, the U.S. midterm congressional elections are less than four months away. Democrats are fighting hard to regain control of both chambers of Congress. Political analysts argue that by escalating an extremely unpopular war at such a sensitive moment, Trump is exposing his own party to a potentially devastating electoral backlash. They warn that the conflict could disrupt global oil markets, fueling inflation and increasing the cost of living for ordinary Americans.

One political analyst described Trump's decision as "a completely losing gamble." According to the analyst, "It suggests Trump is not thinking about the midterm elections at all. On Iran, he is behaving like Icarus from Greek mythology, flying too close to the sun out of arrogance. His actions appear driven by a personal desire for revenge against the Iranians."

The concerns extend beyond electoral politics. Analysts warn that if the aerial conflict intensifies, it could eventually lead to a U.S. ground invasion of Iran. Such a move would draw Trump into the kind of prolonged "forever war" he once promised to avoid and for which he repeatedly criticized previous American presidents.

Even within the U.S. military establishment, many experts question the effectiveness of Trump's decision to launch airstrikes on Iranian military facilities. Retired General Joseph Votel, who led U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) during Trump's first term, believes the military value of such operations is limited. He argues that Washington must return to diplomacy as part of any sustainable strategy. At the same time, he says Trump should rebuild cooperation with NATO allies whom he repeatedly alienated during his previous administration.

"We need to focus more on the areas where Iran is gaining strategic influence," Votel said. While acknowledging that military action may sometimes be necessary, he stressed that defensive measures are equally important to prevent a wider conflict.

The former CENTCOM commander added: "We are now seeing a cycle of strikes and counterstrikes. We attack, they retaliate. My assessment is that this conflict could continue for weeks or even months. That requires long-term strategic patience, which carries significant political risks."

Only days after the two countries signed a ceasefire memorandum of understanding (MoU), military tensions in the Persian Gulf began escalating again. The agreement had already faced sharp criticism from Republican neoconservatives, who denounced it as Trump's "surrender" to Iran. Tehran, meanwhile, responded by launching drone and missile attacks against U.S. allies in the region.

As commercial shipping under U.S. naval protection shifted from dangerous Iranian coastal waters to neutral Omani sea routes, Iran began targeting those vessels. Previously, Tehran had imposed what it called "service fees" on ships passing near its coast and regulated maritime traffic despite objections from Washington and its allies. Some analysts blame the renewed tensions on weak U.S. negotiations, arguing that the agreement failed to clearly address the use of alternative shipping routes, creating ambiguity and misunderstanding from the outset.

Vali Nasr, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, believes the memorandum primarily served as a temporary political breathing space for Trump. According to Nasr, Trump's ultimate objective is to seize full control of the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz—or wrest that control away from Iran by any means necessary.

"He wants to strip Iran of its economic and military leverage before serious negotiations begin," Nasr said, "so that Tehran cannot resist his demands regarding its nuclear program or other national interests."

Nasr argues that Iran also made a major strategic gamble. It hoped to use the 60-day ceasefire to revive stalled imports, provide some relief to its fragile economy, and strengthen its domestic political position.

"The bottom line is that both sides fundamentally miscalculated," he said. "This was not merely a misunderstanding—it was a deliberate strategic game."

Iran appears prepared to take enormous risks by using the Strait of Hormuz as political leverage against Trump. Through control of one of the world's most important energy chokepoints, Tehran can influence global oil supplies and exert pressure on the wealthy Arab states of the Persian Gulf. Iran's willingness to escalate may, in turn, encourage Trump to pursue even more aggressive military action, raising fears that the conflict could spread into a broader regional war involving ground operations. However, Washington's initial objective of pursuing regime change through the elimination of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior leaders now appears to have been dropped from its immediate plans.

Swanson, a former U.S. State Department official, believes Trump may have been overly confident that military force alone could achieve his objectives. "Now that this approach has fallen short, he is searching for another path," he said. "At the same time, the Iranians may also be overestimating the strength of their regional deterrence. If the conflict drags on, no one knows how long either side can sustain it."

He also argues that the Trump administration's lack of experienced Iran specialists has significantly contributed to the diplomatic failures.

Swanson, who lost his State Department position after a critical tweet by right-wing social media influencer Laura Loomer, directly blamed Secretary of State Marco Rubio for the shortage of qualified experts. According to him, Rubio systematically removed experienced diplomats and Iran specialists from the department.

Now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, Swanson said, "I was surprised by the leaks surrounding the internal decision-making process. Reports suggest that when Israel proposed a joint regime-change strategy in Iran, Rubio privately expressed doubts but remained silent in front of Trump."

"He effectively sidelined the State Department, stayed quiet, and sought to distance himself from the historic responsibility for the decision," Swanson added.

Having sidelined the advice of experienced Iran experts, Trump is instead relying on a small circle of trusted advisers, including his chief special envoy Steve Witkoff, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and, more recently, J.D. Vance, who had initially opposed the administration's early military decisions.

Author: Robert Tait is the Washington correspondent and senior political analyst for The Guardian, one of the United Kingdom's leading newspapers.