By Press TV Website Staff
US President Donald Trump’s war on Iran could backfire politically, with his “ego” and misguided advice driving costly miscalculations that may hurt Republicans in the November midterm elections, says a US analyst.
Speaking to the Press TV website, US-based author and broadcaster Richard Eskow said Trump’s decision to wage war on Iran was driven by a series of serious miscalculations, including misplaced faith in Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claims, a flawed reading of Iran’s internal unity and military capabilities, and the president’s own ego.
“He was simultaneously misled by advisors and seduced by the whispers of his own ego,” Eskow said, identifying Trump’s biggest mistake in relation to his policy on Iran.
Midterms amid Trump’s record-low approval
With the November 3 midterm elections approaching, Trump’s low approval ratings and economic pressures facing American households present significant challenges for Republicans.
All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and roughly one-third of the Senate are up for grabs, with Democrats seeking to regain control of both chambers of the US Congress.
Recent polling has shown Democrats leading Republicans in the congressional preference question, although the size of the advantage varies between surveys. The outcome could determine how much room Trump has to advance his domestic agenda during the final two years of his presidency.
Under normal circumstances, Eskow said, Trump’s low approval ratings and widespread economic stress would lead to sweeping Republican defeats in both chambers. However, he cautioned against assuming that these factors would necessarily translate into the electoral outcome suggested by current polling.
“But these are not normal circumstances,” he said in a conversation with the Press TV website.
Eskow added that the political process had been severely compromised by the ability of wealthy individuals and corporations to make large campaign donations.
As an example, he cited a study conducted after Trump’s unexpected victory in 2016 that showed a massive surge in so-called “dark money” supporting his campaign during the final two weeks of the race.
He said current polls pointed to a favorable outcome for Democrats but did not account for the potential impact of a similar influx of money in the final days of the campaign.
“Trump’s low approval rating will hurt his party, of course, but the effect may not be nearly as great as some predictions have suggested,” Eskow said.
War on Iran: Can Democrats stop Trump’s aggression?
The upcoming midterm elections could have implications beyond domestic politics, particularly for the US war on Iran.
The United States and the Israeli regime waged their first unprovoked war of aggression against Iran in June 2025, which lasted 12 days. Their second military aggression began on February 28, 2026, and came to a temporary halt in early April after 40 days.
Tehran and Washington signed a Pakistan-mediated Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in June intended to end the war on all fronts. However, the understanding collapsed within weeks after the United States violated its commitments and launched fresh attacks on Iran’s southern provinces.
During both imposed wars, Iranian armed forces launched precision strikes against US and Israeli military facilities and assets across the region. Iran has also maintained a tight grip on the Strait of Hormuz since the early days of the second imposed war.
Eskow said Democrats would have the constitutional and financial means to stop Trump’s war if they won control of both the House and the Senate, although their willingness to use those powers remains uncertain.
“The US Constitution says that only Congress can declare wars (although both Democratic and Republican presidents have routinely ignored that restriction and Congress resisted them),” he said.
US Congress also controls federal spending, giving lawmakers the ability to deny funding for future aggression against Iran, he added.
However, Eskow questioned whether Democratic leaders would be willing to take such action, pointing to their historically pro-military posture.
He attributed this position to several factors, including the influence of AIPAC and military industry lobbyists in the political process, the neoconservative views of party leaders who favor the national security state, and their fear of appearing “weak” if they failed to support military action.
Nevertheless, Eskow said, there were reasons to believe that the political environment could change the calculations in Washington.
“From the start, Trump’s war on Iran has been the most unpopular American military campaign in modern history,” he said.
He noted that voters from both parties had increasingly turned against US military intervention abroad, adding that the Democratic primary process had demonstrated how strongly opinions had shifted among the party’s voters.
“If Democrats win both the House and Senate, that could weaken Trump’s resolve to continue the war. It would certainly make Republicans in Congress think twice about continuing to support it,” Eskow said.
“If that happens, the war could wind down fairly quickly—not simply because ‘the Democrats stopped it,’ but because the political climate made it impossible for it to continue.”
Trump’s mistakes: Miscalculating Iran’s military and regional position
Asked about Trump's biggest mistake on its Iran policy, Eskow said there had been so many that selecting just one was difficult. He identified six miscalculations, including the president’s reliance on Netanyahu’s assessment of the war.
“He listened to Netanyahu, who told him this war could overthrow the government of Iran,” Eskow said.
He also added that Trump had been misled by the ease with which he had illegally kidnapped Venezuela’s president, leading him to underestimate the challenges of waging a war on Iran.
Another mistake, according to Eskow, was listening to advisers who had claimed the existence of political and regional divisions within Iran and believed an attack would cause national unity to collapse.
“History teaches the opposite; people tend to unite when faced by an outside threat,” he said.
Eskow also noted that Trump had underestimated the technical capabilities of the Iranian military.
He further said that Trump and his advisers had failed to adequately consider the geography of the region and the strategic vulnerabilities surrounding key maritime routes.
“He didn’t look at a map. (Neither did his advisors, apparently.) If he had, he would have seen the vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz—and of Bab al-Mandeb, which Ansarallah had already successfully dominated during the Biden Administration,” Eskow said.
For Eskow, however, the combination of poor advice and personal overconfidence ultimately explained the president’s miscalculations.
“If I have to choose one ‘biggest mistake,’ it’s this: He was simultaneously misled by advisors and seduced by the whispers of his own ego.”
Economic pressure on Iran: Limits to Washington’s sanctions strategy
The US aggression against Iran has also involved economic sanctions that affect ordinary Iranians. Tehran has slammed the measures as “economic terrorism”.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed that Iran’s economy faces imminent collapse, but the country’s system has demonstrated extraordinary resilience.
Eskow said the extent to which Washington would continue increasing pressure on Iranian civilians could depend partly on the consequences for Americans themselves.
One potential constraint was the possibility of Iran retaliating by completely shutting down oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, which would raise oil prices and hurt US consumers, he said.
Bessent also threatened a “secondary boycott” targeting entities doing business with Iran. However, Eskow noted that Washington has limited room to expand such measures without risking retaliation from other major economies.
“If he targeted banks in China, for example, the Chinese could retaliate in ways that would directly harm the US economy,” he said.
Domestic political considerations could also limit further sanctions, Eskow said. “The war is already unpopular with American voters. Today, many Americans are unaware that sanctions are also an instrument of war that harms civilians.”
He said an escalation of sanctions could draw greater media attention to the suffering of Iranian civilians, reducing public support for the measures and increasing pressure on Washington to end them.
“That, in turn, could make sanctions less popular and add to the pressure to stop them,” Eskow said.
US-Russia diesel deal: Limited relief for American consumers
The Trump administration’s approach to Russia, including a deal involving diesel supplies, presents another set of economic and political questions ahead of the midterms.
The agreement comes amid disruptions to Russian refining capacity linked to Ukrainian attacks and broader tensions over Washington’s policy toward Moscow and Kiev.
Eskow said the United States was capable of limiting the impact of Ukrainian attacks on Russian refining facilities and had already begun doing so. However, he expected disruptions to continue to some extent, particularly because efforts to restrict Ukraine’s military options were extremely unpopular.
He also questioned the potential economic significance of the promised diesel supplies for the United States, where fuel prices and household costs remain important political issues.
“The amount of diesel fuel promised is far too trivial to affect US fuel prices, much less the entire consumer economy, in any significant way,” Eskow said.
He said the initial delivery amounted to less than one day’s worth of US diesel consumption, while the total volume promised represented approximately four days’ worth.
The deal’s political implications are less straightforward. Eskow said there was no reliable data showing how the agreement would affect the midterm elections, but said that evidence suggested it could be unpopular among voters.
He pointed to longstanding hostility toward Russia and President Vladimir Putin among both major US political parties and the American media, predating Trump’s first election victory.
As a result, the deal had drawn criticism in the media and faced opposition in Congress, developments that Eskow said could hurt Trump and Republicans ahead of the vote.
The agreement’s longer-term consequences remain uncertain, he said.
“The long-term effects are difficult to predict right now, especially given Trump’s past reversals on Russia and Ukraine, but it’s likely to increase pressure for a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine along with a possible weakening of support for sanctions overall.”
This makes it easy to access the Press TV website