US administration's war bill firmly rejected at ballot box

The United States administration has discovered that some decisions come with bills that voters are reluctant to pay. The result of the Nov 3 midterm elections is a reminder to the Republican Party that foreign policies may have a habit of becoming domestic liabilities. Democrats captured both chambers of the US Congress, turning what the Republicans had hoped would be a "midterm endorsement" into a constraint on the remainder of the administration's term.

In a media interview, US President Donald Trump acknowledged that the conflict with Iran had contributed to Republican losses, although he insisted that soaring oil prices, rather than the war itself, were the bigger problem.

Vice-President JD Vance tried to limit the reasons for the defeat to the conflict. The conflict has compounded the cost-of-living problems for many households in the US by disrupting oil supplies and pushing up prices at the pump.

The US administration can acknowledge the economic damage while refusing to regret the decisions that caused it, but voters have shown they have little sympathy for that convenient separation.

The US administration certainly tried to soften the price-at-the-pump blow before election day. It released another 40 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, bringing the US contribution to an internationally coordinated release to 172 million barrels. It also sought additional diesel supplies from Russia, discussed replenishing its reserves with Venezuelan crude, coordinated further releases with G7 partners and relaxed tax rules on certain diesel sales. It repeatedly promised that prices would soon fall. By early October, US strategic reserves had dropped below 284 million barrels, their lowest level since 1982. Yet these moves were of limited effect.

There is an economic lesson here that the White House would prefer to ignore. The US is a major oil producer and net exporter; it can even "claim" to have access to Venezuelan crude. But neither production capacity nor political control over foreign supplies insulates the US from global market forces. Oil is priced and traded internationally. When the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of the world's oil and gas pass, is disrupted, US consumers pay a global risk premium just as consumers elsewhere do. Washington cannot be expected to remain immune to the costs of its own military actions in an interconnected energy market.

This should also serve as a reminder to the US administration of the blowback from some of its unilateral actions in technology and trade. These restrictive measures are, in fact, also a significant factor driving up the cost of living for US families and raising operating costs across the economy.

Gulf governments are unlikely to have missed the electoral message. Saudi Arabia, alongside Turkiye and Pakistan, has intensified contacts with Tehran in an effort to prevent another round of fighting. The presence in Iran of Saudi defense minister and senior Pakistani and Turkish officials signals a growing recognition that regional security cannot be built indefinitely around confrontation. Such diplomacy deserves encouragement. The alternative is another cycle of retaliation that threatens oil infrastructure, shipping routes and the economic ambitions of the entire Gulf.

The danger is that political calculations in Washington and Tel Aviv may pull in the opposite direction. Reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged the US president to resume strikes against Iran immediately after the midterms are deeply troubling, even though Israel has denied that it is pressing the US leader. Another offensive could drive oil prices higher and deepen the very economic discontent that has weakened support for the Republican Party.

With Democrats projected to control both the House and Senate, the US administration will face a far less compliant Congress. A president retains considerable authority but sustaining an extended campaign requires money, and congressional approval of additional spending will become much harder. The election might therefore change the domestic arithmetic of war.

Whether the Republican defeat ultimately produces restraint or further escalation remains uncertain. What is certain is the ballot box has delivered a message that missiles cannot easily silence: the costs of war do not stop at the battlefield, and even a superpower cannot indefinitely export the consequences of its choices.