US Vice President JD Vance blamed the war with Iran for Republicans' sweeping midterm election defeats, including the loss of both chambers of Congress, as President Donald Trump weighed renewed military strikes against Tehran or a negotiated settlement to end the conflict.
"The reason we lost is the war," Vance wrote on X.
"If you'd like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so," Vance wrote on Wednesday. "But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there."
Trump acknowledged that the war had contributed to the election setbacks but defended his decision to attack Iran, saying he would make the same choice again.
Trump defends Iran war
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Trump said Vance's assessment was "largely true," pointing to the rise in gasoline prices following the conflict.
"We had no choice. You can't let Iran have a nuclear weapon," Trump said.
Asked when he would end the war, Trump replied: "Whenever I wanted to. But it's got to be done right, because they can't have a nuclear weapon."
In comments to The Wall Street Journal, Trump said "Iran was a piece of it," referring to the Republican losses, but reiterated that the military campaign was necessary.
Vance, who has been involved in negotiations with Tehran, also praised advice to seek a diplomatic resolution to the conflict.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Vance had opposed the war from the outset, despite publicly defending the administration's military actions.
US officials debate renewed strikes on Iran
Senior US officials are debating whether to escalate military operations against Iran or continue applying economic pressure while pursuing negotiations, according to reports by The Wall Street Journal and Axios.
The Journal reported on Wednesday that some officials were advocating an escalation of strikes, while the administration had spent weeks discussing the war's impact on the elections and whether to publicly acknowledge continuing military operations against Iran.
Axios reported that the US military was completing preparations for a possible resumption of major combat operations, including deploying additional military assets to the region.
Other senior officials favor maintaining the naval blockade of Iranian ports and economic sanctions while assessing whether Tehran is prepared to reach an agreement.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent are among those advocating continued economic and military pressure rather than an immediate return to large-scale strikes, according to Axios.
Trump has not announced a decision on whether to expand the military campaign.
Qatar seeks agreement to avert renewed fighting
The discussions in Washington come as Qatar continues efforts to secure US and Iranian approval for a proposal aimed at preventing another major escalation and potentially restarting direct negotiations.
According to Axios, Qatari mediators are working to obtain support from both sides for a draft agreement, with the possibility of direct talks in the coming days.
Vance has been among the senior officials advising Trump to pursue an agreement with Iran, warning privately about the consequences of prolonging the war, the report said.
The mediation effort has yet to produce a breakthrough. Iranian and US officials remain divided over key issues, including Tehran's nuclear program, sanctions and arrangements involving the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump's administration is also considering maintaining its current approach of a naval blockade and economic pressure without immediately resuming large-scale military operations.
Trump backs defense secretary amid scrutiny of Iran campaign
Trump also defended Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday as questions emerged over whether the administration might change its military leadership following the election.
Asked whether he was considering replacing Hegseth, Trump said: "No, I think he's doing a very good job."
Reuters reported that some Trump advisers had discussed the possibility of replacing Hegseth, who has been a prominent supporter of the war against Iran.
Democratic lawmakers, who won control of both chambers of Congress, have indicated that they intend to investigate the Pentagon's handling of the Iran conflict.
The Defense Department said Hegseth remained committed to serving through the end of Trump's term and defended the legality of its operations.
With no agreement yet reached between Washington and Tehran, the administration continues to weigh renewed strikes, sustained economic pressure and diplomatic efforts to end the conflict.
Democratic leaders vowed Wednesday to push for an end to the Iran war and tackle rising living costs after sweeping US midterm election victories handed their party control of both chambers of Congress.
"It's important for the president, before we even cross over into the new Congress, to end this war in Iran," House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries told MS Now's Morning Joe programme.
Jeffries blamed what he called Trump's "reckless and costly war of choice in Iran" for driving up fuel and fertiliser costs, contributing to higher prices for groceries and other goods.
The Democrats' victories in Tuesday's elections gave them control of both the House of Representatives and Senate, reversing Republican majorities and potentially allowing them to constrain President Donald Trump's agenda during the final two years of his presidency.
Democrats flipped at least seven Republican-held Senate seats, winning in Texas, Kansas, Iowa, Ohio, Maine, North Carolina and South Carolina. They also captured more than two dozen Republican-held House districts, including areas Trump had won comfortably in the 2024 presidential election.
Among the most notable results, James Talarico became the first Democrat elected to the Senate from Texas since 1988, defeating Republican Ken Paxton. Democrats also retained competitive Senate seats in Georgia and Michigan.
The scale of the victories reflected voter dissatisfaction over high living costs, the war with Iran and concerns about government corruption, according to Associated Press voter polling.
Democratic leaders demand an end to Iran war
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said the incoming majority could use congressional control over government spending to push for an end to military operations against Iran.
"This war must end. It must end," Schumer told reporters Wednesday.
He said Congress's "power of the purse" was one way to restrain a president conducting a war without the consent of the American people.
Jeffries, who is set to become House speaker when the new Congress convenes in January, said the party's priority would be reducing the cost of groceries, gasoline, housing and healthcare.
"We ran on affordability. We won on affordability," he said.
Trump and Vance acknowledge war's impact
Vice President JD Vance blamed the Iran war for Republicans' losses, writing on X that "the reason we lost is the war."
Trump acknowledged Wednesday that the conflict had likely contributed to the electoral defeat by pushing up gasoline prices, but defended his decision to launch military action against Tehran.
"I think it's largely true because it drove the gasoline up a little bit short term," Trump said when asked about Vance's assessment.
He insisted the war had been necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and said he would make the same decision again.
"I can tell you that as far as that war is concerned, I would have done nothing different," he said.
Trump also argued that Republicans would have won if he had been on the ballot, saying the enthusiasm he attracted at campaign rallies had not transferred to other Republican candidates.
The Democratic takeover of Congress will give the party greater power to investigate the Trump administration, challenge its legislative agenda and potentially restrict military funding.
However, Trump will retain the presidency and veto power, meaning congressional control alone will not give Democrats the authority to end the war.
Tehran hails results, warn against further strikes
Iranian officials portrayed the Democratic victories as a rejection of Trump's military campaign, although Tehran remained wary of renewed US attacks.
"Conscience or the cost of living, Americans said NO TO WAR, and we endorse this message," Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf wrote on X Wednesday.
Ghalibaf, who has led Iran's negotiations with Washington, warned the US government against disregarding voters' message by launching further strikes.
Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, however, dismissed expectations that a change in the balance of power in Washington would alter US hostility toward Tehran.
A written statement attributed to Khamenei warned against "even the slightest inclination towards submission" to the United States, saying Washington's approach would persist regardless of which party was in power.
"The US sees the end of its hegemony as distant; we see it as near," Khamenei added.
Two senior Iranian sources cited by Reuters said that while Tehran welcomed the Democratic victories, Iranian leaders feared Trump could attempt to compensate for his electoral setback with renewed military action.
A Revolutionary Court in Tehran has sentenced social media activist Amirhossein Mousavi to death on charges of "corruption on earth" over his activity on X, his lawyer said Wednesday.
In a post on X, Mousavi's lawyer, Reza Shafakhah, said his client had been sentenced over his online activity under the account name "James Bidin."
The sentence was issued by Branch 15 of Tehran's Revolutionary Court, presided over by Judge Abolghasem Salavati, who is under US, British and European Union sanctions over his role in human rights abuses.
Mousavi, 42, who has been detained since December 2024, was also sentenced to five years in prison for "insulting religious sanctities," his sister said on X.
His sister, Saeideh Mousavi, condemned the ruling and called for it to be overturned.
"We condemn this unjust sentence and demand its reversal and that Amirhossein's life be saved," she wrote.
She said her brother had used his online presence to amplify the voices of political prisoners and families of people killed during protests in Iran.
"His only crime was writing about and highlighting the suffering of people whose voices were rarely heard," she wrote, adding: "Writing about people's suffering is not a crime!"
The death sentence also prompted messages of support from other X users, some of whom echoed his sister's appeal.
"He was our voice for years. Now it's our turn to be his," one user wrote.
Another warned that the ruling could have wider implications for Iranians expressing their views online.
"Today, Amirhossein Mousavi was sentenced. Tomorrow, it could be you or me," the user wrote. "We must speak up for him before it's too late."
Mousavi had also received support from families of slain protesters before Wednesday's verdict.
Shabnam Eskandari, whose brother Mohammadreza Eskandari was killed during the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom protests in Pakdasht, near Tehran, praised Mousavi for helping bereaved families keep the memories of their loved ones alive.
In an October 10 post on X, Eskandari recalled how Mousavi had repeatedly shared posts about her brother and other slain protesters.
"It was James Bidin who constantly shared posts from our families' accounts and repeatedly wrote the names of our loved ones," she wrote.
Solitary confinement, televised confession
Mousavi was arrested on December 18, 2024, at Tehran's Mehrabad Airport while preparing to travel to the southern Iranian island of Kish, according to HRANA.
His lawyer previously said security agencies had monitored Mousavi's X account for nearly six months before identifying him through his activity on the platform.
His prosecution has drawn attention over allegations of prolonged solitary confinement, physical abuse and a televised confession that Mousavi subsequently said had been obtained through threats and coercion.
On October 6, 2025, Iranian state television aired footage of Mousavi during its 20:30 news programme, presenting statements linking him to alleged intelligence activities involving Israel.
Mousavi later rejected the allegations in a letter from Evin Prison, saying interrogators had forced him to participate in the televised interview after months of physical and psychological pressure.
He said he had spent 148 days in solitary confinement, been subjected to beatings and faced threats involving his wife, who had also been arrested.
According to Mousavi, interrogators threatened to detain her again unless he agreed to the interview.
He said his statements had been made under pressure and at the prompting of interrogators, and that state television had selectively edited and distorted his remarks before broadcasting them.
Mousavi also denied supplying Israel with information about sensitive military facilities or maintaining contact with agents of Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, saying he had never had access to classified information.
Iranian state television has a long history of broadcasting confessions by detainees accused of espionage, national security offences and involvement in anti-government protests.
Human rights organisations have repeatedly criticised the practice, warning that confessions obtained under duress have been used in criminal proceedings, including cases resulting in death sentences.
Hundreds under death sentence
Mousavi's sentence comes amid growing concern over Iran's use of capital punishment against political prisoners and people detained during nationwide anti-government protests in January 2026.
Although Mousavi was arrested before those demonstrations, his case comes as Iranian courts continue to issue death sentences against protesters and other defendants accused of political and national security offences.
An Iran International review of cases involving political charges indicates that approximately 220 prisoners are currently under sentence of death, up from around 194 recorded in early October.
Iran Human Rights, a Norway-based rights organisation, reported Tuesday that at least 691 people had been executed in Iran during the first 10 months of 2026.
Of those, 81 were executed on security-related charges, a category that includes political prisoners, protesters, people accused of espionage and other defendants.
The organisation said 36 protesters were among those executed during the period, including 34 arrested in connection with the January uprising and two associated with the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom protests.
The Democrats' victory in the US midterm elections has drawn mixed reactions from Iran International's audience, with some criticizing Donald Trump's prolonged indecision over Iran and others maintaining that Democratic control of Congress will not prevent military action.
Democrats regained control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate from Republicans in the November 3 elections, ending two years of Republican control.
The outcome does not change Trump's presidential powers during his remaining two years in the White House, but could influence his administration's decisions, including its approach toward the Islamic Republic.
"Don't celebrate too soon. An angry Trump is far more lethal to you than a happy Trump," one wrote, addressing Islamic Republic officials.
Islamic Republic warned against early celebrations
Officials and supporters of the Islamic Republic have sought to portray the election results as a victory for themselves and a defeat for Trump's policies.
However, comments shared with Iran International reflected different perspectives, including concerns about the consequences of the vote and warnings against premature celebrations by Iranian authorities.
Several people suggested that such celebrations reflected a misunderstanding of the US political system and the powers Trump retains as president.
"Islamic Republic officials are talking as if they don't realize Trump still has two years in office. Even that amount of time is enough to finish the job," one user wrote.
Another commenter pointed out that congressional elections would not necessarily prevent military action against the Islamic Republic, suggesting Trump could use his veto powers to counter congressional opposition.
The new Congress will take office on January 3, 2027.
Trump previously said that a Democratic victory could force him to use his presidential veto so frequently that he might become known as "Mr. Veto."
Democratic majorities could increase congressional oversight of the administration and impose budgetary restrictions on military operations. However, overriding a presidential veto requires a two-thirds majority of members present and voting in both chambers.
Trump's delays over Iran draw criticism
A substantial portion of the comments criticized Trump's handling of the confrontation with the Islamic Republic, particularly his shifting positions on negotiations, economic pressure and military action.
Some expressed frustration over the prolonged uncertainty, saying Trump's approach had prevented him from fulfilling his promises and cost him an opportunity to end the war and bring about political change in Iran.
"Trump prolonged this uncertainty for so long, talking about war one day and negotiations the next, that he missed the opportunity to overthrow the Islamic Republic and turned what could have been a victory into a defeat," one commenter wrote.
Another accused Trump of excessive accommodation, saying his approach had given the Islamic Republic time to delay negotiations, use diplomacy to avoid further confrontation and escape additional Israeli strikes.
Others described the administration's approach as a "cat-and-mouse game" or a strategy of pursuing contradictory policies.
Trump said on November 2, a day before the elections, that he was in no hurry to resume the war and preferred to continue economic pressure to persuade Iran to accept an agreement.
The US president also said military action would remain an option if negotiations failed.
One citizen questioned Trump's apparent expectation that economic hardship would drive Iranians into the streets, pointing to the armed repression protesters face alongside their worsening living conditions.
Another blamed Trump for missing an opportunity to continue military strikes following the killing of Ali Khamenei. A separate commenter accused the US president of halting the momentum toward overthrowing the Islamic Republic by preventing further Israeli operations.
Other comments cited continued executions, economic hardship and threats to Iran's critical infrastructure as evidence that Trump's approach had failed to produce meaningful results.
Can a Democratic Congress constrain Trump?
Other Iran International audience questioned whether Democratic control of Congress would significantly restrict Trump's ability to pursue military operations or increase pressure on the Islamic Republic.
Some cited historical examples of US military campaigns that continued or expanded despite opposition-party control of Congress.
One pointed to the continuation of the Vietnam War and its expansion into Cambodia under President Richard Nixon, the 1991 war under President George H.W. Bush, and military operations against ISIS and in Libya under President Barack Obama.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq under President George W. Bush were also cited.
Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress from 2007 until Bush left office in January 2009, but the two wars continued.
These examples were raised to challenge the assumption that a Democratic majority would automatically prevent Trump from pursuing military action against the Islamic Republic.
The reactions highlighted two competing concerns among Iran International's audience: frustration over Trump's reluctance to pursue further military action against the Islamic Republic and uncertainty over how far the Democratic victory could restrict his options during his remaining two years in office.
Iran executed at least 77 people in October, bringing the total recorded this year to 691, including 36 protesters, Norway-based Iran Human Rights (IHRNGO) said on Tuesday.
The group's latest report also documented three cases in which men were executed for deaths it said were caused or provoked by police violence, with evidence of misconduct allegedly ignored or concealed by authorities.
The findings come amid continued executions linked to Iran's December-January nationwide protests, including the hanging of two more men on Tuesday.
Protesters among those executed
According to IHRNGO, 39 people were executed for murder in October, 31 for drug-related offenses, six on national security charges and one for rape.
The six security-related executions included three protesters arrested in connection with January's demonstrations, two political prisoners affiliated with banned opposition groups and an Iraqi national convicted of espionage for Saudi Arabia.
The group said only 13 of October's 77 executions were publicly announced by Iranian authorities. It verified the remaining 64 through independent sources.
From January through October, IHRNGO recorded 691 executions, including 36 protesters, 15 political prisoners affiliated with banned opposition groups and 17 people accused of espionage or collaboration with foreign governments.
The total also included 23 women, 28 foreign nationals and three men who were under 18 at the time of their alleged offenses.
The organization said it had received reports of more than 500 additional executions that remained unverified and were therefore excluded from its figures.
Rights group alleges police violence was concealed
The report identified three men executed between September 30 and October 12 after being convicted of killing police officers, despite evidence that IHRNGO said pointed to police misconduct.
Jaber Khosravi, 43, was executed in Damghan Prison on September 30 following an incident in which a police officer was fatally shot.
According to IHRNGO, Khosravi was experiencing a severe psychiatric episode when officers assaulted him during an emergency hospital response. The group said he discharged a firearm unintentionally, killing an officer, but medical records documenting his condition were disregarded.
Danial Jahanian, 37, was hanged in Bandar Abbas on October 11 over the death of a police officer in a traffic collision.
IHRNGO said forensic evidence and court documents indicated that plainclothes officers shot Jahanian in both legs, causing him to lose consciousness before the collision. The organization also alleged that authorities concealed evidence suggesting another vehicle had fatally injured the officer.
Abolhassan Ranjbar, a 39-year-old Baluch man, was executed in Minab on October 12. The rights group disputed the authorities' account of a deliberate vehicular attack, saying the fatal collision followed a confrontation initiated by police.
"The Islamic Republic uses the death penalty not only to silence dissent, but also to cover up abuses by its own security forces," said Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, director of Iran Human Rights.
He accused Iranian authorities of systematically denying defendants fair trials and due process.
Two more men executed over January protests
The report coincided with the executions of Amirhossein Maleki and Amirhossein Ebrahimi, who were hanged on Tuesday in connection with January's protests in Isfahan.
Iran's judiciary-linked Mizan news agency alleged that the men had been armed and said the Supreme Court had upheld their death sentences.
They were among 12 defendants sentenced to death in a case stemming from protests at Alikhani Square on January 8, when authorities accused protesters of involvement in the deaths of four security personnel and other offenses.
Seven other defendants in the case had already been executed since July 19, according to Iran Human Rights.
A lawyer representing defendants has disputed the official account, saying none had been formally charged with murder and the alleged killings had not been tried.
The two executions announced Tuesday were not included in IHRNGO's October figures.
UN raises concerns over mass trials
The latest findings follow warnings from UN Special Rapporteur on Iran Mai Sato, who told the UN General Assembly on October 28 that at least 34 people had been executed in connection with January's nationwide protests.
Sato described mass trials in which dozens of defendants faced proceedings lasting only days, raising concerns about whether individual criminal responsibility had been established.
In one case, she said, 34 defendants were tried over five days, with 12 sentenced to death.
The UN's Independent International Fact-Finding Mission concluded that the suppression of January's protests amounted to crimes against humanity.
Iran rejected the UN findings, describing the investigative mechanisms as politically motivated and illegitimate.
Rights groups have repeatedly raised concerns about Iran's use of broadly defined national security offenses, restricted access to lawyers and convictions based on alleged forced confessions.
IHRNGO warned that the true number of executions could be substantially higher than the cases it has independently verified.
Democrats' victory in both chambers of Congress could strengthen oversight of Donald Trump's war with Iran, but some analysts say the electoral setback may encourage the US president to intensify military operations before the new Congress takes office in January.
The Democratic takeover gives opponents of the war greater influence over military spending, congressional investigations and legislation restricting presidential authority. Yet it also creates a nearly two-month period in which Trump can pursue military objectives before lawmakers assume their new positions on January 3.
The possibility that electoral defeat could encourage further military action emerged in assessments by foreign policy specialists and analysts interviewed by Iran International on Tuesday.
"We can expect Trump to carry out a major military operation, perhaps even more intense than what he would have undertaken had he retained control of Congress," international relations analyst Fereshteh Pezeshk told Iran International.
Pezeshk argued that Trump could seek to demonstrate his authority and influence the media narrative following Republican losses. She said the incoming Congress might delay military funding or create other obstacles, but would have limited power to restrain the president, who would remain commander-in-chief after January 3.
Trump acknowledged the economic impact of the Iran war after the Republican defeat but rejected the suggestion that voters opposed the military campaign itself.
"I don't think it's the war. I think it's a gasoline price. People agree with what I'm doing on Iran, but they really probably weren't willing to do the short-term consequence of paying more for gasoline," Trump told Fox News.
The president nevertheless defended his Iran policy.
"I am totally convinced that my decision on Iran for the long term good of our country and even the world was absolutely the correct one and it continues to be," Trump told Politico.
Could defeat encourage a bigger offensive?
The administration was preparing a major new offensive against Iran before the midterms, and the election result could strengthen Trump's incentive to proceed during the transition period, Barbara Slavin, a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center, wrote on November 2.
Slavin identified reopening the Strait of Hormuz and securing Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium as possible objectives.
But she said that renewed attacks could expose American allies in the Persian Gulf to further Iranian retaliation, increase energy costs and cause extensive destruction without achieving Washington's goals.
A military escalation could also offer Trump a way to seek a decisive outcome before Democrats acquire greater oversight powers.
Trump's calculations differ from those of conventional presidents because he places considerable weight on his personal political achievements, journalist and political analyst Omid Memarian told Iran International.
"Trump is an unconventional president whose calculations of costs and benefits are very different from those of other politicians and former presidents," Memarian said.
He argued that the president could use the period before January to launch a concentrated military operation, weaken Iran's military or nuclear capabilities, declare victory and then seek negotiations or reduce American involvement.
"I think it may even have increased the likelihood of an attack," Memarian said.
A Democratic Congress would make managing the war more difficult through investigations, committee hearings and scrutiny of military decisions, Memarian said. That could increase Trump's incentive to seek a faster conclusion rather than simply abandon military options.
The possibility has a historical parallel. After Republicans lost the 2006 midterm elections, President George W. Bush increased US troop deployments to Iraq the following year despite mounting public opposition to the conflict.
That precedent does not establish what Trump will do, but it illustrates why an electoral defeat need not produce an immediate reduction in military operations.
How much power will Democrats have?
Control of Congress gives Democrats substantial legislative and budgetary authority, but the president remains commander-in-chief.
Congress can investigate the administration, restrict appropriations and pass legislation addressing military operations. Trump, however, can veto restrictive legislation, requiring two-thirds majorities in both chambers to override him.
"Even if Democrats hold a majority in both houses, their influence will be limited to the legislative and political tools of Congress," former national security adviser John Bolton told Deutsche Welle.
Democrats have already sought to use Congress's financial authority against the war.
Senator Tim Kaine, who has repeatedly challenged Trump's military operations without congressional authorization, pledged in August to continue efforts to cut off funding.
"I'm going to keep doing all that I can to cut off funding for what will go down in history as one of America's most foolish foreign policy catastrophes of all time," Kaine said in an official statement.
Other Democrats, including Senator Chris Coons, have distinguished between replenishing American military stockpiles and financing operations that would effectively extend the conflict.
Yet restricting funding may become politically harder if Trump orders a major offensive before January.
Democrats could inherit responsibility for decisions about supplying American troops already engaged in combat, political analyst Morad Veisi said. Opposing the war would not necessarily make lawmakers willing to withhold resources from deployed forces.
Could Trump pursue the Islamic Republic's downfall?
The possible objectives of further military action remain a major point of disagreement among analysts interviewed by Iran International.
Trump could regard the remainder of his presidency as an opportunity to secure a historic legacy, potentially including military action contributing to the Islamic Republic's downfall, Veisi said.
"I think Trump could leave behind a political legacy by helping bring about the downfall of the Islamic Republic. I'm not saying he will definitely do it, but it would be consistent with his character, and he has 60 days," Veisi said.
Veisi linked that possibility to what he described as Israel's increasingly explicit pursuit of the Islamic Republic's removal. He argued that Trump might support a broader campaign if he believed it could deliver a defining political achievement.
The analyst also suggested that an expanded conflict launched before January could leave incoming Democrats confronting military commitments they would find difficult to reverse.
Pezeshk offered a different assessment, distinguishing between forcing the Islamic Republic to submit to American demands and deliberately seeking its overthrow.
"We still do not see evidence that Trump is taking steps that would lead us to conclude he intends to overthrow the Islamic Republic rather than force it to submit," Pezeshk told Iran International.
She argued that Trump appeared more attracted to a Venezuela-style approach than an Iraq-style intervention involving prolonged American responsibility for political reconstruction.
She also questioned whether Washington had a clear plan for replacing Iran's governing institutions.
Could Tehran misread the election?
Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf portrayed the election result as a rejection of the war and warned Washington against disregarding what he described as the will of American voters.
"Conscience or the cost of living, Americans said NO TO WAR, and we endorse this message," Ghalibaf wrote on X.
"If the US govt betrays their public will to serve international paymasters and blackmailers, it will learn our NO comes with a Nightmare," he added.
Ghalibaf's message combined his interpretation of the election with a warning of consequences if Washington continued its military campaign.
But the shift in congressional control does not necessarily signal a corresponding change in Washington's strategic objectives.
Iranian leaders should not mistake political divisions in Washington for a weakening of American power, Washington-based national security specialist Amir Hamidi told Iran International.
"President Trump may lose his congressional majority, but he has not lost his presidential authority. An electoral defeat for one party is not a defeat of America's national power," Hamidi said.
Hamidi added that the Islamic Republic could pay a heavy price for misreading the election result, arguing that the US president remains commander-in-chief and retains significant authority over diplomacy and crisis management.
Congressional oversight of military operations and war spending could increase under Democratic control, but that would not necessarily diminish US deterrence or its longstanding security commitments, Hamidi said.
A narrowing window before January
The Democratic victory may have changed the political timetable for the Iran war without changing who controls its immediate course.
Until the new Congress takes office on January 3, Trump retains the authority to make military decisions that could shape the conflict well beyond the transition period. A major offensive during those weeks could leave incoming lawmakers confronting decisions already made and military commitments difficult to reverse.
The election result also presents a question for the Islamic Republic: whether Washington's domestic political divisions will translate into restraint or whether an approaching deadline could encourage further military action.
The coming weeks may therefore matter more than the new balance of power in Congress. A vote intended to change the direction of American politics could precede a decisive turn in a war that the incoming lawmakers have yet to gain the power to influence.
