Iran's chief negotiator says Americans voted 'no to war'

The phrase “no to war” was Iran’s interpretation of the US midterm results. Iran’s chief negotiator argued that Republican losses showed Americans had rejected President Donald Trump’s military approach toward Iran. Parliament speaker Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf endorsed that message and warned that Iran would also reject pressure from Washington.

The clearest link was the election’s cost. Trump acknowledged that the war and the resulting rise in petrol prices partly hurt Republican candidates. He said voters might agree with his Iran policy but were unwilling to accept higher short-term gasoline costs. Iran therefore presented the vote as a public demand for an end to conflict.

The result did not automatically end the war. Trump said he did not regret the February attack and that the conflict would end when he decided. Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei also expected continued American hostility, while indirect negotiations remained stalled.

US midterm elections are congressional elections held halfway through a president’s four-year term. Voters choose members of the House of Representatives and some senators. These elections do not directly choose the president, but they determine which party controls much of Congress.

They can become a judgment on presidential policies because the president’s party is closely associated with the administration. Voters may use the election to approve its decisions or express dissatisfaction. In this case, Iran, the war, and gasoline prices became part of that political judgment. Trump himself said Iran was one reason for the Republican defeat.

The article describes the result as a stunning loss for Trump’s Republican Party. It does not show that every voter opposed the war. Trump said many people agreed with his policy but disliked paying more for fuel. The election therefore signaled political cost without proving one single public motive.

The connection was economic as well as military. The article says the Iran war caused a surge in petrol prices. That meant the conflict was felt by drivers and households, not only by governments or soldiers. Higher fuel costs can make a foreign-policy decision politically painful at home.

Trump openly connected the election results to that pressure. He said voters might agree with what he was doing in Iran but were not willing to accept the short-term consequences of paying more for gasoline. He acknowledged that the war and petrol-price surge partly contributed to Republican candidates’ poor performance.

The defeat did not necessarily mean every voter opposed military action. It showed that the costs associated with the conflict damaged the governing party. Trump still said he did not regret the February attack. The result could nevertheless increase pressure to reach a deal and avoid another escalation.

No single actor had complete control in the article. The US president had immediate military and diplomatic influence. Trump said he launched the joint attack with Israel, warned that the US and Israel could return to all-out war, and said the conflict would end when he said it ended.

Iran’s leadership also held decisive authority. Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei said American hostility would not change and warned that a renewed war could become much wider. President Masoud Pezeshkian said the supreme leader had given the government power to negotiate issues once considered off-limits. Negotiators therefore acted within authority set by Iran’s leadership.

Congress mattered politically because the midterm defeat showed public dissatisfaction with the war’s costs. However, the article does not say Congress controlled the talks or ordered an end to fighting. The outcome depended mainly on decisions by the US president, Iran’s leaders, and the negotiators trying to reach a deal.

Indirect talks are negotiations in which opposing sides communicate through an intermediary rather than meeting directly. The mediator carries proposals, responses, and clarifications between them. This arrangement can keep diplomacy open when trust is low or direct contact is politically difficult.

The article identifies Qatar as the mediator in the current US-Iran negotiations. Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson said the talks still rested on a seven-step proposal submitted in September. That proposal had been condensed so it could be implemented within two days. The use of Qatar created a communication channel without requiring US and Iranian officials to negotiate face to face.

The talks had been stalled for months, so mediation had not yet produced a final settlement. Iran’s government said it wanted to resolve the crisis through dialogue, while Trump warned that the US and Israel could resume all-out war. Qatar’s role could support further diplomacy, but the article gives no guarantee of success.

The Strait of Hormuz is a maritime passage used by commercial vessels carrying energy from the Gulf. Its importance comes from the enormous volume of oil and gas that normally travels through it. The article says one-fifth of global oil and gas shipments usually pass through the strait.

That scale makes the waterway strategically important during the Iran conflict. The article says it was effectively closed after Iranian missile and drone attacks on commercial vessels and a US naval blockade. The US and Iran later reached a preliminary agreement to reopen it, but the agreement collapsed within weeks when attacks on shipping resumed and the blockade returned.

Iran insisted on keeping some control over the waterway. It began targeting vessels using a southern route through Omani waters rather than its preferred route through Iranian waters. Reports of tanker fires and attacks increased concern, although BBC Verify found no evidence that four tankers had been destroyed.

A major shipping route connects a military conflict to economies far beyond the battlefield. When vessels cannot safely use the Strait of Hormuz, oil and gas shipments may be delayed, rerouted, or blocked. Because the article says one-fifth of global energy shipments normally pass through the strait, disruption can affect supply expectations worldwide.

The key mechanism is risk. Iranian attacks on commercial vessels and the US naval blockade effectively closed the waterway. Iran then targeted vessels using a southern route through Omani waters. These actions made shipping more dangerous and uncertain. Energy markets can respond to that uncertainty through higher prices, including the petrol-price surge described in the article.

Higher gasoline prices reach households directly. Trump said voters may have supported his Iran policy but rejected its short-term fuel costs. That helped damage Republican candidates in the midterms. Continued disruption could therefore increase economic pressure, public opposition, and demands for a negotiated end to the conflict.