Despite the likelihood of being repudiated in Tuesday’s midterms — and perhaps in part because of that rejection — the Trump administration is preparing a massive new assault on Iran to try to wrest some sort of victory from nine months of failure.

The objective — apart from saving face — is to force Iran to fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz, through which traffic flowed freely prior to the war, and to relinquish a stockpile of highly enriched uranium buried under the rubble of the first U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran in June 2025.

However, new attacks would be fraught with dangers to U.S. Arab allies, which have borne the brunt of Iranian retaliation, and to global consumers already facing record energy prices. The strikes could also constitute war crimes if essential infrastructure in Iran is destroyed. Indeed, Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), among those briefed last week on the new attack plans, called them “insane.”

Still, if the Republican party loses control of Congress, the temptation may be strong for Trump to use the lame duck period before a new Democratic-run Congress is seated in January and to profit also from an interregnum in Israel following elections that rejected the ruling right-wing coalition but failed to produce an easy alternative. Caretaker Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who convinced Trump to begin the war in February in part on a false assumption that it would topple the Islamic Republic, had unsuccessfully urged Trump to resume major hostilities against Iran before Israel’s October 27 elections and may see a new window of opportunity after the U.S. vote with the added benefit of prolonging the Israeli leader’s political survival.

What else new fighting would achieve — apart from more death, destruction, and higher oil prices — is hard to see. Iran has withstood months of attacks and a U.S. blockade of its ports following the collapse of a June memorandum of understanding mediated by Pakistan. Tehran has rejected previous ultimatums and may view the U.S. election results as vindication and prefer to wait until a new Congress takes power and tries to rein in Trump’s aggressive policies.

Important regional players, which have seen major setbacks to their ambitious plans to diversify away from reliance on fossil fuels, have sought again to mediate an end to the war. But Iran is insisting on up-front, tangible benefits — including unfrozen assets and guarantees of no resumption of attacks — before it will stop menacing traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. It has so far rejected U.S. demands that it agree to dig up and send out a thousand pounds of highly enriched uranium buried under the rubble of the 12-day U.S. and Israeli bombing campaign in 2025. There is also more and more talk in Tehran among influential figures about quitting the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and actually building atomic bombs.

The picture is further clouded by a resumption of war in Yemen between Saudi-backed factions and the Iran-backed Houthis following a Saudi strike on Sanaa airport and Houthi advances along the Red Sea coast. It is unclear whether a deal between the U.S. and Iran would also result in a ceasefire in Yemen and a reduction of threats to shipping through the Bab el-Mandeb. Iran has also insisted that Israel stop military action in Lebanon against Hezbollah that has expanded into wholesale destruction of homes and infrastructure in Lebanon’s south. Meanwhile, Israel continues to hit alleged Hamas targets in the post-apocalyptic ruins of Gaza as reconstruction there remains stalled, Palestinians face another winter in tents, and the world’s attention is on Ukraine.

Another reason why Netanyahu is pushing for a resumption of the war on Iran during the lame duck period is recognition that Israel’s promotion of the war, on top of its disproportionate punishment of Gazans following Hamas atrocities against Israelis on October 7, 2023, and rising settler terrorism in the West Bank, have reduced support for Israel among Americans of both political parties. The next Congress is likely to be less inclined to continue generous U.S. military aid to Israel after a 10-year $3.8 billion annual aid package runs out in 2028.

The Trump administration, however, has been bucking popular opinion and seeking to deepen cooperation with Israel. The 2027 fiscal year National Defense Authorization Act, which the House has approved but which awaits a vote in the Senate, would direct the U.S. defense secretary to designate an “executive agent” to manage a new US-Israel initiative combining the two countries’ military research, arms development, and production.

The U.S. and Israel have long shared intelligence on mutual adversaries and the Iran war is not the first time Washington has been drawn into a conflict begun by Israel. The 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon is a classic example, as poignantly explained in a new book by Kim Ghattas, which recounts the rise of Hezbollah after the invasion and its targeting of U.S. Marines and other Americans in Beirut. But the latest proposal would meld the U.S. and Israeli military establishments in a way that could make it even more difficult for Washington to deny complicity in Israeli actions, including war crimes. A new Democratic-run Congress may seek to block the provision and impose other restrictions on offensive arms. A bill introduced in May would outlaw the sale of bunker busting bombs and other heavy ammunition unless Israel provides assurances in writing that the weapons will not be used in ways that violate U.S. or international humanitarian law.

It is too late, however, to rewind the tape on the Israeli-American war of choice on Iran. The conflict opened a Pandora’s box of troubles in the region and beyond, resurrected some of the most aggressive and repressive elements of the Islamic Republic, and set back admittedly slim chances for reform. (Indeed, Israeli officials have acknowledged exploiting Iranian opposition to the regime with little regard for the fate of the protestors.)

While Iranian officials take care of themselves, ordinary people are suffering through their worst economic crisis since the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. More U.S. bombing, however, is not the answer to Iran’s problems. An analyst in Tehran who has contributed to Stimson anonymously in the past noted, “Throughout our very long history, we have faced people far worse than Trump, and every time we survived.”