Will the US resume its attacks on Iran? Trump, the midterms and the search for a deal

Iran has warned that its response to any attack would have no geographical restrictions, as fears grow that the United States could return to all-out war. The presenter noted that Iran says it is ready with a maximum deterrence plan if the US or Israel launch attacks, despite the threat of escalation.

Mediators are working to revive the ceasefire deal and bring Tehran and Washington closer to an agreement. The program posed the central questions of whether diplomacy stands a chance and how the outcome of the US midterms will shape the war.

Donald Trump tried to cushion the blow from a bruising US midterm result. He said Republicans lost control of Congress because he was not on the ballot, and that had he been, the party would have won in a landslide. While the elections were largely about domestic issues, the president admitted the fallout from the war in Iran was a factor.

Trump said he had the best economy in his first term, but that the high gasoline price meant people did not notice it as much as they otherwise would have. He said the gasoline price was caused by Iran.

Trump's position on Iran has been unpredictable. In the lead-up to the midterms he repeatedly threatened to resume a full-scale war. He then said the war would end immediately after the election.

A month later, ahead of the Israeli elections, he endorsed Benjamin Netanyahu, saying he and the prime minister have to finish the job they started. The region has been bracing for escalation for months, and mediators have been trying to rebuild trust between Tehran and Washington with no breakthrough yet.

Iran says the countries of the region should know that, just as it stands ready for battle with its finger on the trigger, it has also delivered a firm and rational response to the American side. Iran's chief negotiator said the ball is now in America's court to prevent the war.

The negotiator went on to say that the surge in support for the Democrats in the midterms, whether driven by conscience or the cost of living, was American taxpayers saying no to war. On the streets of Tehran, many Iranians were unsure what the outcome of the vote means for them.

On Monday, the US carried out what it called limited defensive strikes on Iran's Qeshm Island. Last week, the IRGC reported that four ships struck naval mines while trying to transit the Strait of Hormuz.

Some analysts say the midterms acted as a restraint, with the Trump administration cautious about restarting an unpopular conflict on the eve of elections. With no political price left to pay, it could be only a matter of time before hostilities resume.

The program brought in its guests: Abdullah Al Etaibi, an assistant professor in international relations at Qatar University, in Doha; Ali Akbar Dareini, a researcher at the Center for Strategic Studies, in Tehran; and Cenap Aydin, director of the Middle East Studies program at George Washington University, in Washington.

Aydin said the midterms were a referendum on many things, including domestic politics, foreign policy, the war and gas prices. He noted that the president is still in charge of conducting foreign policy and remains commander-in-chief, and that he has threatened to veto any legislation the Democrats send and to rule by executive order.

Aydin argued that from January the Democrats could make things considerably harder for Trump, including through subpoenas and attempts to undermine him. They have already threatened to impeach War Secretary Pete Hegseth. Trump can continue ruling by executive order, but it will be much more difficult. Aydin said the war in Iran is extremely unpopular, that Americans do not see its justification, and that they are paying the price for it.

Dareini, speaking from Tehran, argued that strategies do not change in the United States, but tactics and policies do. He said the midterm result was a big victory for Iran. Although the Democrats are celebrating their landslide, he argued they owe it to Iran, which took the war to US gas stations and kitchens by pushing oil prices above $100 per barrel. He said rising gasoline and diesel prices were a major factor in the Republicans' humiliating defeat.

Dareini cautioned that this does not mean there will be no war. He argued that Iran still counts on the calculation that Trump and Netanyahu started their war of aggression against Iran on the basis of geostrategic calculations, and that Trump now has a new incentive to restart the war: revenge, because he feels humiliated and blames Iran.

Asked whether a lame-duck president would simply wind down, the host suggested Trump could instead be an angry duck, with one eye on his legacy and a wish to take what he would call decisive action. Aydin agreed that Trump is very revengeful and takes things personally. Combined with the power of the US military behind him, he said, this is a very dangerous cocktail.

Aydin said Trump does not want to leave the White House feeling humiliated by Iranians, so there is a good chance he would like to escalate and, in his view, teach Iranians a lesson. He pointed to reports that Trump could use a 'mother of all bombs' bunker-buster on Iranian facilities. He described Trump as wanting to settle accounts with Iranians.

On diplomacy, the presenter noted that the ceasefire memo has not substantively changed and is being pushed by Qatar and Pakistan. Dareini said Iran sticks with its seven conditions and will not allow the United States to cheat again. As long as the Americans do not comply with the seven conditions, he said, there will be no deal.

He said Iran's strategy has followed a two-pronged approach: keeping the door of diplomacy open while focusing on its military strategy to deny the United States victory. That is why, he argued, Iran's doctrine has changed from a doctrine of regional war to a doctrine of war without geographical limitations. He said there is no solution in sight while the Americans do not comply with the seven conditions.

Asked whether Qatar's foreign policy will change in the new US reality, Al Etaibi said he did not think so. Relations with the US are institution-based and are not about who is in the White House. He said Qatar has pursued strategic dialogue with the United States for years across security, economic, educational and sports matters, including the World Cup.

He described the cooperation as multi-dimensional and institution-to-institution, and said it has been fruitful for both parties and has produced good outcomes based on the interests of both countries. He said foreign policy would not be limited to whoever is in the White House.

The presenter raised a $400 million plane gifted to the US presidency, which Trump regards as his. Al Etaibi said the plane was an institution-to-institution matter handled between Qatar's ministry of defense and the US department of defense. He said Qatar had been trying to find a buyer for the aircraft, which had very specific high-end specifications and were difficult to sell. Keeping them in storage was costing the country even more, so disposing of them was easier and cheaper.

He described the relationship as strategic for both parties, pointing to mediation on issues including Gaza, the two countries being major LNG exporters, ties through American universities in Qatar, and cooperation in sports. He said he did not expect major changes and that the partnership would continue to flourish.

Al Etaibi argued the war changed Iran's image for the Chinese and Russians. In his view, it was Iran's 'Ukraine moment': Iranians were fighting two nuclear weapons states, did not lose, and showed unprecedented resilience. He said China has traditionally followed a non-interference policy and tries to stay away from international conflicts, but that images being published suggest China is playing a role. He pointed to a picture of an Iranian foreign ministry official with the Chinese foreign minister, which he said signals that China is playing a role and is capable of it.

On Russia, he said the relationship with Iran is based more on security and defense cooperation, and that Russia provided Iran with intelligence during the conflict, which enabled Iran to target American facilities. Asked whether Russia would want Iran to have better relations with the West, he said no. Russia does not want conflict, but also does not want Iran to have good relations with the West, because that would make Iran dependent on them.

The presenter recalled that the late supreme leader's line was 'nuclear power for all, nuclear weapons for none', and that a fatwa said Iran would not seek a nuclear weapon. Discussion of the nuclear doctrine in a Friday sermon has been read as a possible softening. The guest said there is increasing pressure on the Supreme Leader and the ruling system to move towards nuclear weapons, because if Iran possessed them the United States and Israel would never have dared attack. He argued Iran's conventional deterrence was insufficient.

He said demands are coming from the public, experts and lawmakers for the government to change its nuclear doctrine. However, no final or official decision has been made, and Iran has made no political decision to weaponize its nuclear program.

Al Etaibi said Iran's nuclear push could be read in two ways. It could be a two-level game in which the Iranians show domestic pressure on the Supreme Leader to pursue a bomb, and that pressure must be relieved before it produces tangible results. It could also be a way for Iran's mediators and government to increase pressure on the international community, signalling that they cannot do anything about the pressure unless more pressure is put on the US in mediation and negotiations.

He said it could be a trick Iran is using or a reality Iran is stating. He expected mediators to focus on managing the current conflict, avoiding a return to escalation, and enabling diplomacy at present, with more discussion of the nuclear issue and other issues later.

Asked whether clerics' calls for a nuclear weapon change the US position or are simply public negotiating posturing, a guest said the nuclear talk is aimed at pressuring the United States. He added that willingness to have the bomb is one thing, but the opportunity to get the bomb is another. The question is whether a country has the capacity and the opportunity. He said he did not believe Iran has the opportunity to dash for the bomb.

He explained that Iran would have to hide everything from the decision to build a bomb until it tested a device, and that foreign intelligence agencies and governments would likely detect this. The countries that attacked Iran on the pretext of preventing it from getting the bomb would attack again. He also said a single test is not equal to a robust nuclear deterrent, and that Iran would need more than one device to deter foreign attacks.

The presenter noted that Israel and the United States have pushed the narrative that Iran's Supreme National Security Council is divided along IRGC, politician and cleric lines, and that this is why Iran has failed to capitalise on a memorandum of understanding seen as favouring Iran. The guest responded that when Israelis and Americans talk about divisions in Iran, this plays into Iran's hands, because it helps Iran's cause.

He acknowledged that there are differences of opinion during council discussions, with people in favour of or opposed to an idea. However, once a decision is made by the Supreme National Security Council and approved by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, he said there is consensus and no disagreement on how to proceed. He conceded there is a lot of political bickering and opposition to various proposals among political factions and experts, but said unity exists at the top level of power.

The presenter asked what Oman's regional strategy is, given the foreign ministry spokesman's line that this is a regional problem that the region must address together, and whether it has changed because of what has happened in the US. The guest said regional dialogue is very important and that solutions must be found to basic problems in order to push for coexistence.

He said building trust requires respecting international law and the legitimacy of governments and countries, not fuelling conflicts through proxies, and respecting the sovereignty of countries. He warned against hijacking the Strait of Hormuz and putting it at the mercy of a US-Iran deal when an Iran-Oman framework has already been finalised. He added that the world is globalised, so events such as the Ukraine-Russia war affected markets and countries far beyond their borders, and regional events now affect countries in other parts of the world.

The presenter said trust was the key word, with no trust between the US and Iran on either side. The situation was back where it stood before the midterms, with neither side trusting the other, and Trump needing a legacy. The presenter asked whether a return to war was coming.

The guest said the issue is really one of credibility, and neither side has any credibility with the other. On whether war is inevitable, he said the honest answer is that it is very complicated and that he did not know. He said he certainly hoped Iranians and Americans would find a diplomatic solution, because in the absence of one, war would be inevitable, though he was not sure whether it would happen.