Trump, Iran and the limits of American power
By Rod Benson
This article responds to Andrew Gawthorpe’s fine analysis of the 2026 US midterm elections. It considers the risk of renewed US escalation against Iran and the scope for democratic restraint. A second article will examine cuts to foreign assistance and the responsibilities of Australia and Christian churches.
A setback with international consequences
Donald Trump’s Republican Party suffered a sweeping defeat in the US midterm elections on 3 November 2026. Democrats won control of both chambers of Congress as voters registered anger over living costs, government conduct and the war with Iran. The result restricts Trump’s domestic agenda, but it does not automatically restrain his foreign policy. Leiden University historian Andrew Gawthorpe warns that a president frustrated at home may become more active abroad. His concern is that a humiliated president could respond to political humiliation with greater unpredictability.
This possibility deserves scrutiny without reducing policy to personality. Trump prizes demonstrations of strength, yet also values the image of a successful negotiator. He could seek military success to recover prestige, or an agreement that lowers fuel prices and lets him claim victory. Indeed, the election has altered the incentives for both Washington and Tehran without removing the sources of conflict.
Three possible paths remain open: further escalation, an uneasy continuation of limited hostilities, or a negotiated settlement. Assessing their relative likelihood requires attention to diplomacy, military risks and the constitutional restraints on presidential action. A headline-making attack may satisfy demands for toughness while making any eventual settlement harder to negotiate and enforce.
Escalation is a choice, not a destiny
The present war began with US and Israeli strikes against Iran on 28 February 2026. Iran retaliated, and fighting spread through the region. A June agreement provided grounds for hope, but by early November indirect negotiations mediated by Qatar had still failed to end the conflict. Reuters reported that Washington and Tehran remained far apart over sanctions, the American blockade, freedom of navigation and nuclear questions. Trump said he was prepared for more military action, while Iranian officials threatened retaliation. Further strikes could therefore trigger a cycle that neither side can readily control.
Strategically, Iran may threaten US positions and partners across the region while disruption through the Strait of Hormuz affects international shipping, oil prices and inflation. New attacks may degrade Iranian capabilities yet harden resistance to compromise; military superiority does not itself establish a viable political settlement. Conversely, a bargain that restores navigation, addresses nuclear concerns and provides credible verification would benefit regional governments and households far beyond the Middle East. Gulf officials have reportedly judged that Trump’s electoral losses might make a deal more attractive.
Congress, law and accountability
The newly elected Congress does not convene until January 2027, and laws restricting presidential action could encounter a veto requiring two-thirds support in each chamber to override. War Powers procedures and Congress’s control of spending matter, yet enforcement depends on political coalitions and institutional resolve. Republican willingness to join Democrats may therefore prove decisive. Claims that the election has already removed Trump’s military authority exaggerate what a congressional victory can achieve. Investigations can still reshape the public debate by establishing what objectives were stated, which alternatives were considered, and how civilian risks were assessed.
Constitutional restraint is also a moral necessity. The use of force requires public reasons, lawful authority, a defensible objective and rigorous protection of civilians. Christian just-war reasoning tests necessity, right intention, proportionality and the prospect of achieving a just peace; it cannot legitimise escalation merely to repair a leader’s reputation. Nor does Christian teaching require ignoring threats to security. Jesus blesses peacemakers (Mt 5:9), while the wider biblical witness links peace with justice and the dignity of neighbours. These principles demand sober judgment, credible diplomacy and accountability for foreseeable civilian suffering.
Australia’s independent responsibility
Australia’s alliance with the United States brings genuine security interests, but not an obligation to endorse every military decision. The Albanese government’s June statement welcomed a US–Iran agreement, called for de-escalation and emphasised the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. That remains a sound policy foundation: Australia should advocate a verifiable settlement, safe shipping and the protection of civilians while assessing any request for military support against international law and its own national interest.
Trump’s defeat offers neither reassurance nor a prediction of catastrophe. For allies, the task is to encourage restraint without abandoning legitimate security concerns. For churches, the task is to pray for peace, and to argue that a just peace cannot be measured simply by which nation claims victory. The next question is equally urgent: while governments debate military power, what happens to people whose survival depends on the humanitarian assistance Washington has withdrawn?
A companion article: “Beyond the battlefield: Foreign aid and the Christian duty of solidarity” examines the humanitarian consequences of American policy and the responsibilities of Australia and the churches.
Rev Dr Rod Benson lives in Sydney and writes about a range of topics from books and local history to food, faith, philosophy, ethics, research skills, and everyday life. Away from the keyboard, he enjoys cooking for friends, walking in the Australian bush, exploring a beach, discovering new restaurants, and reading philosophy, fiction and poetry. He is married to Emma and is minister of North Rocks Community Church, a Uniting Church congregation.
Image source: RNZ
