ConflictClarifier

2026伊朗-海湾危机追踪
CC
Events Archive
strikeApr 13, 2026

High gas prices will haunt the GOP even if the war ends soon - The Korea Times

Summary

There’s still more political fallout for the GOP courtesy of the Iran war: Even if the conflict ends soon, voters could be grappling with pain at the gas pump deep into midterm election season, as Republicans struggle to defend razor-thin majorities in Congress. The influence American presidents have on oil markets is often difficult to discern. But in the case of President Donald Trump, the impact of his decision to team up with Israel for ongoing military strikes on Iran has been plain to see. With the war and the resulting closure of the Strait of Hormuz heading into week six, crude oil is trading north of $100 per barrel. Americans, still beset by anxiety over the cost of living, are now paying more than $4 per gallon on average for gasoline, compared to roughly $3 per gallon before Operation Epic Fury started on Feb. 28. That has erased a lone bright spot on affordability for the Trump administration, one rarely disputed even by Democrats. And when it comes to the cost of a barrel of oil, what is easily done is not easily undone, as Neale Mahoney, director of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, explained to me. “You have a ‘rockets-and-feathers’ phenomenon at the pump — something we’ve seen time again,” he said. What does that mean? When factors like war or other constraints that hamper supply cause oil prices to spike, the per-gallon cost of gasoline rises quickly, “like a rocket.” And when the pressures are removed from the equation, “Gas prices float down slowly, like a feather,” Mahoney said. In other words, even once Middle East oil producers get their facilities up and running at full capacity or the Strait of Hormuz is reopened to normal shipping traffic, “It will take time for prices to settle back to normal in the US,” he added. But that’s not the only headache related to higher oil prices that Trump — and by extension, Republicans in Congress — are facing as they struggle to hang on to their majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate. The economic pain is spreading, impacting consumers across multiple sectors. Jet fuel costs have surged, driving airfares higher. Prices for diesel fuel and urea, a crude oil byproduct used to fertilize crops, are also climbing, taking some food prices with them. Plus, extensive media coverage, which tends to occur once the average cost-per-gallon of gas eclipses $3.50, “will only stoke voters’ frustrations, according to Mahoney. “Because people are concerned about gas prices,” he said, “it raises inflation expectations — and the media pays attention to that.” Case in point: Interest rates, which had dropped, are back on the rise, pushing up borrowing costs. Based on historical trends and projections for the price of crude oil, Mahoney estimates that average pump prices could rise through June and then possibly relax over the summer — but at a snail’s pace. And even if prices begin to ease, the rate at which oil futures are trading suggest costs are likely to remain elevated. That means consumers could continue to pay more at the pump and face related higher costs for several months, potentially right up until midterm voting begins. Trump’s political standing has already taken a hit since the Iran war began. His overall job approval rating was 43.5 percent then; it’s just under 41 percent now, according to the RealClearPolitics average of recent surveys. Voters rate him worse on his management of the economy, at 37.2 percent, and they’re even more dissatisfied with his handling of inflation, at 33.2 percent. Democrats lead the generic ballot, gauging which party voters would prefer control to Congress, by six percentage points. If that’s not bad enough, Trump and congressional Republicans are in bigger trouble with independent voters, who are crucial to the outcome of midterm elections. Democrats hold a commanding 18-point generic ballot lead over the Republicans among independent voters, according to a fresh poll from CNN. The president may truly believe that his policies have reduced the cost of living to acceptable levels. As he said in his speech from the White House last week: “We were a dead and crippled country after the [Biden] administration, and [I] made it the hottest country anywhere in the world by far, with no inflation.” But it’s abundantly clear that a majority of voters disagree with him, especially regarding that latter assertion. Some of Trump’s Republican allies, however, do appear to understand the political minefield that the GOP could be forced to navigate for the next seven months. “People are pocketbook voters,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune told NOTUS’ Al Weaver. The South Dakota Republican believes that’s likely to be the case with voters who are otherwise “inclined” to support the Iran war “from a national security standpoint.” That’s the political challenge facing Republicans — and the political opportunity for Democrats — this fall, even if Trump were to have pulled the plug on the Iran war by the time you read this column. David M. Drucker is a columnist covering politics and policy. He is also a senior writer for The Dispatch and the author of "In Trump's Shadow: The Battle for 2024 and the Future of the GOP." This article was published by Bloomberg and distributed by Tribune Content Agency.

Actors involved

USIsraelIran

Sources

  • David M DruckerBy David M Drucker

    There’s still more political fallout for the GOP courtesy of the Iran war: Even if the conflict ends soon, voters could be grappling with pain at the gas pump deep into midterm election season, as Republicans struggle to defend razor-thin majorities in Congress. The influence Ame

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran