Trump Delays Iran Strikes Until After US Midterms as Netanyahu Weighs Timing

Ordinary Americans heading to the polls on November 3 will vote under a policy they largely reject: about two-thirds disapprove of President Donald Trump's approach to Iran, with concerns rising about what further military action would do to energy prices. The vote will not decide whether that policy continues. Both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are reported to be preparing another round of strikes on Iran once the election is over.

Trump has publicly excluded a US attack before November 3. Netanyahu, whose country held its own election this week, had wanted to resume bombing ahead of the Israeli and American votes, according to reports; he has denied it. The Israeli leader has previously been described as relying on an ongoing war to shield himself from political and legal scrutiny. Several recent reports indicate both governments are genuinely preparing for a major new round of strikes after the midterms.

The timing undercuts the case both leaders have made for the war. If renewed attacks on Iran are needed to protect the American public, the necessity does not obviously depend on whether that public has already voted. Trump and his party face no further election for years in most cases, which removes a near-term political cost from a deeply unpopular policy.

The source article, written by Connor O'Keeffe for the Mises Wire, argues the war serves identifiable interests rather than an imminent threat. Among them are Israeli politicians who want American power directed at weakening Iran, their main regional rival, and domestic weapons companies paid to restock dwindling munitions supplies. The claim that Iran is weeks from a nuclear war, O'Keeffe writes, describes weapons and delivery technology Iran does not possess.

O'Keeffe situates the episode in a longer pattern of presidents scheduling contentious action around elections. George W. Bush delayed the Iraq surge until after the 2006 midterms. Barack Obama waited until after the 2014 midterms to enact second-term immigration reforms and had earlier held back contested regulations until after 2012. George Bush Sr. announced the Gulf military buildup two days after the 1990 midterms, weeks after ordering it. Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson each campaigned on staying out of wars and changed course once elections passed.

The argument in the column is that elections do not direct government so much as limit what government can get away with. States act in their own interest, but they depend on a population large enough to resist that accepts the stated reasons for state action. Democratic procedure, O'Keeffe writes, became the legitimizing justification after the older justifications for monarchical rule collapsed. When that justification weakens, he argues, so does the room for action it permits.

Public opinion can still narrow what is attempted. The Trump administration's decision to hold off on Iran until after November 3 is offered as one sign of that pressure. What it cannot do, under this reading, is compel officials to act on the result of a vote.

Israel held its election on October 27, three days before the American midterms. The date for any new strikes on Iran has not been set.