"I'd Do It Again": Trump Rejects Regret Over the Iran War and Ties Its End to the Congressional Elections

U.S. President Donald Trump, in an interview with Fox News, categorically rejected any suggestion that he regrets launching the military operation against Iran. In his own words, the very concept of regret is foreign to him: "I don't believe in the word 'regret.' You can always reflect a little on yourself. If I had to do it all over again, I would do exactly the same thing," the White House chief declared. The statement came amid a growing domestic political debate over how the protracted conflict in the Middle East could affect the midterm elections to Congress, scheduled for November 2026.

Stance on "regret" and the morale of supporters

Trump also directly refuted claims that a portion of his electoral base had been upset or demoralized by the course of the fighting. "I don't think they are demoralized. I think they are very proud that I am not letting Iran have nuclear weapons," the president emphasized, shifting the focus from military losses to a narrative of containing a nuclear threat. In this way, the administration is trying to preserve intra-party cohesion, positioning the conflict as a defense of national interests rather than a risk to the Republican Party's electoral prospects.

Linking the conflict to the midterm elections

Particular attention deserves Trump's statement on the timeframe for ending hostilities. "It will all be over right after the elections," he said, thereby directly tying the conclusion of the operation to November 2026, when Americans will determine the composition of Congress. The president repeated similar rhetoric on Wednesday as well, claiming that Iran is deliberately trying to influence the outcome of the vote on which the Republican Party's retention of control over the chambers of Congress depends. In his version, it is precisely the fear of a Democratic victory that motivates Tehran to prolong the conflict.

"Not at full strength": limiting the scale of the operation

In a number of reports citing the same statements, Trump also acknowledged that the United States is not conducting military operations against Iran "at full strength" precisely because of the approaching elections. This acknowledgment, in effect, confirms that the electoral cycle has become one of the key factors determining the pace and intensity of the American military campaign. For observers, this means that even in the event of an escalation in the Middle East, the administration is deliberately holding down an operational ceiling so as to avoid a sharp rise in casualties and public costs during the pre-election period.

Contradictory data

Between the various formulations Trump used during the interview and in his subsequent comments, a certain inconsistency can be traced. On the one hand, he states that the war will "end right after the elections," which implies the existence of a clear plan to conclude hostilities in a short timeframe. On the other hand, the acknowledgment that the U.S. is not acting "at full strength" because of the elections effectively indicates the absence of a rigid operational schedule: the conflict could be frozen or shifted into a phase of low-level tension without a final resolution. Moreover, the claim that Iran is "prolonging the war for the Democrats' victory" is not supported by publicly available evidence from Tehran, which, on the contrary, in a number of statements accuses Washington of unilateral escalation. Thus, both sides of the conflict present contradictory versions of the causes and prospects of the protracted nature of the operation.

Context and outlook

Trump's statements came at a moment when midterm elections to Congress are traditionally perceived as a referendum on the incumbent president's policy. By tying the end of the Iran campaign to November, the White House chief, in the view of political analysts, is trying simultaneously to lock in a "victory" before his supporters and to relieve electoral pressure ahead of the vote. However, the very fact of publicly acknowledging that the elections influence military strategy could become a subject of criticism from both Democrats and a portion of the Republican electorate, for whom the priority is unconditional military superiority, not its subordination to the electoral calendar.