What began as a high-stakes demonstration of American military power risks becoming the crisis that defines—and potentially undermines—Donald Trump’s second term in the White House. Nearly five months after the United States joined Israel in launching major strikes against Iran, the conflict has evolved into a grinding, unpopular war of attrition with no clear end in sight. Rising costs, eroding public support, and the absence of a decisive victory are already reshaping the political landscape in Washington and raising the prospect that this war will overshadow everything else Trump hopes to achieve.
The fighting began on February 28, 2026, when U.S. and Israeli forces carried out nearly 900 strikes in a single day. The initial wave targeted Iranian missile sites, air defenses, military infrastructure, and leadership. Among the casualties was Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Iran responded with waves of missiles and drones directed at U.S. bases, Israeli targets, and energy infrastructure across the Middle East. The opening phase left thousands dead, disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and sent oil prices soaring. After weeks of intense combat, a fragile ceasefire took hold in early April. A subsequent memorandum of understanding in June was supposed to wind the conflict down within 60 days. Instead, the agreement collapsed in early July when Iran struck commercial vessels attempting to transit the Strait outside Tehran’s preferred routes. President Trump declared the ceasefire “over,” and U.S. forces resumed heavy airstrikes. By mid-to-late July the United States was conducting nightly attacks, with the latest rounds targeting air defenses, missile storage, coastal surveillance sites, and IRGC positions.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has put the direct cost of the war at $37.5 billion and requested tens of billions more from Congress. That figure does not capture the full economic burden. Interruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz—the critical chokepoint for a large share of the world’s oil—have driven gasoline prices higher in the United States and contributed to broader inflationary pressure. Farmers have faced elevated fertilizer costs. Trucking companies, which move the majority of American goods, have absorbed higher diesel expenses that ripple through the economy. Consumer prices have risen at the fastest clip in three years at points during the conflict, wiping out real wage gains for many workers. The combination of higher energy costs and large military expenditures has also intensified public concern about the federal deficit.
Public opinion turned against the war early and has grown more negative over time. Unlike many previous American conflicts that began with broad support that later faded, this one was unpopular from the outset. Polls conducted shortly after the opening strikes already showed a plurality of Americans opposed. By May and June, opposition had climbed significantly, with majorities concluding that the administration lacked a clear plan, had failed to explain its goals, and had not done enough to limit civilian casualties or pursue a negotiated settlement. Surveys found large majorities believing the war was harming the cost of living, America’s international reputation, and even national security. Trump’s job approval, already soft for much of his second term, dropped further after the fighting began, settling near 40 percent with disapproval approaching 57 percent. Critically, about one in four of the voters who backed him in 2024 expressed opposition to the war—an erosion of support within his own coalition that is difficult to reverse.
These numbers matter because presidential approval ratings heavily influence midterm elections. As of late spring and early summer, Democrats had opened a meaningful lead in the generic congressional ballot, enough to threaten Republican control of the House and complicate the party’s position in the Senate. A Democratic takeover of either chamber would halt much of Trump’s remaining legislative agenda and subject his administration to aggressive oversight. The war has also exposed fractures inside the Republican Party. Some MAGA-aligned voices, including influential commentators, have criticized the decision to go to war as a betrayal of “America First” principles, arguing that it risks another prolonged Middle East entanglement and serves Israeli interests more than American ones. Vice President JD Vance, who had expressed philosophical reservations before the fighting started, has been forced into the awkward position of defending a policy he once questioned. Those internal tensions make it harder for the White House to maintain message discipline or pivot if the military and political costs continue to climb.
Historically, wars that lack clear objectives and public backing tend to consume the presidencies that oversee them. Vietnam destroyed Lyndon Johnson’s domestic ambitions and forced him from seeking re-election. The long, inconclusive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drained political capital from the administrations that managed them and left the public deeply skeptical of large-scale military interventions. Trump himself built his 2016 campaign in part by denouncing those earlier conflicts as costly failures. Now he owns a Middle East war whose early tactical successes have not translated into strategic resolution. Iranian forces have absorbed heavy losses, yet intelligence assessments indicate the regime retains significant residual missile and drone capacity. The leadership in Tehran has shown no willingness to make the kind of concessions that would allow Trump to declare victory and walk away. Each new round of Iranian attacks on shipping or U.S. personnel is met with American retaliation, reinforcing a cycle that is politically costly at home and difficult to break.
The administration has repeatedly suggested the conflict is nearing its end or that Iranian leaders are desperate for a deal. Those statements have been followed by fresh strikes and new threats, including warnings of heavier attacks on suspected nuclear facilities. The pattern fuels the perception that the war has no off-ramp that does not look like retreat. With the November midterms approaching, the political window for a clean resolution is narrowing. Energy prices, military spending, and the daily drumbeat of conflict news give Democrats a powerful narrative that the president has lost control of events. Even if the fighting eventually freezes into a tense stalemate, the economic and political damage already inflicted will linger.
Internationally, the war has complicated relations with allies and created openings for rivals. China has watched the conflict drain American attention and resources while positioning itself as a more stable economic partner for energy-hungry nations. Regional partners in the Gulf have absorbed missile and drone attacks and face their own political pressures. The disruption of the Strait of Hormuz has reminded the world how fragile global energy supplies remain. None of these dynamics strengthen Trump’s hand at home.
Presidents rarely choose the crises that come to define them. Trump returned to office with a domestic agenda centered on borders, energy production, deregulation, and trade. Instead, he finds himself managing a messy, expensive, and unpopular war in the Middle East. Whether the conflict ends through negotiation, a frozen ceasefire, or further escalation, its shadow already stretches across the remainder of his term. For a leader who prizes the appearance of strength and decisive results, an unresolved war that continually generates costs without delivering a clear win may prove the most consuming challenge of his presidency. The question is no longer whether the Iran war will shape Trump’s second term. It is whether it will come to dominate it.
About The Author
