Trump allies blame eight-month Iran war and soaring energy prices for Republican midterm defeats as White House faces internal divisions

People close to U.S. President Donald Trump are blaming the eight-month war with Iran, rising energy prices and the conflict’s failure to produce a decisive outcome for widespread Republican losses in Tuesday’s midterm elections, according to The Wall Street Journal, as divisions emerge within the White House over the administration’s handling of the war.

The newspaper reported on November 3 that some White House officials and Republican allies now regard the decision to enter the conflict as misguided. Several believe the election results could have been substantially different had the fighting ended months earlier, before higher gasoline and diesel prices became a persistent burden for American households.

The war began on February 28, when the United States and Israel launched military operations against Iran. More than eight months later, the conflict remains unresolved, despite Trump’s earlier assurances that American military pressure would produce a relatively swift outcome.

According to the Journal, the election setbacks have triggered internal finger-pointing over responsibility for the war’s duration and economic consequences. Some officials have begun discussing the possibility that Trump could make personnel changes as the administration assesses the political damage.

The discussions do not establish that any dismissal or reshuffle has been approved. They nevertheless point to growing unease among presidential allies over a conflict that has become increasingly difficult to separate from the administration’s domestic political standing.

The economic consequences have been particularly damaging. Disruptions to regional energy supplies and uncertainty surrounding shipping through the Strait of Hormuz have contributed to higher oil prices, which have translated into increased costs for American drivers, businesses and farmers.

Trump has repeatedly defended the military campaign as necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, arguing that the resulting increase in gasoline prices was justified by the importance of that objective.

But some advisers now warn that the president’s political legacy could be defined by the war if he fails to secure an agreement that ends Iran’s nuclear activities. In that scenario, Trump would have absorbed the economic and political costs of a prolonged conflict without achieving the central objective used to justify it.

The concerns are not entirely new. In September, Reuters reported that senior administration officials had sought to prevent a major escalation before the midterm elections, fearing that additional fighting and rising energy costs could deepen Republican losses.

The latest assessment comes as Democrats are projected to regain control of the House of Representatives, potentially giving them the authority to investigate the administration’s decisions and obstruct much of Trump’s legislative agenda during the final two years of his presidency.

For Trump’s allies, the election results have sharpened a question that has followed the war since its opening weeks: whether the administration can secure an outcome that justifies the military campaign before its political consequences become more difficult to reverse.