CCTV International News: On the afternoon of September 9 local time, U.S. President Trump told the media that he expects military operations against Iran to end shortly after the November U.S. midterm elections this year. Speaking in response to a journalist's question, Trump said: “We are not seeking negotiations (with Iran). Once the election is over, the war will immediately end. They can't hold out any longer. Right now, they're desperately trying to influence the election outcome so we'll elect a weak and ineffective group of people who will then leave them alone and allow them to obtain nuclear weapons.”
With less than two months remaining until the November 3 U.S. midterm election, Trump publicly declared that hostilities against Iran would conclude “after the election,” a statement far from a mere military strategy—it is a complex product deeply entangled with domestic U.S. political calculations, economic pressures, and real-world bargaining between the United States and Iran.
Trump’s clear timeline for ending the conflict at this moment is primarily driven by domestic electoral pressure. Recent polling shows his approval rating has dropped to a record low of 33% during his term, and only 31% of Americans support this war. As rising prices and the ongoing cost of war fuel public discontent, Trump urgently needs to calm voters by promising “post-election cessation of hostilities,” preventing the war issue from becoming a political liability for the Republican Party. His claim that Iran “wants to influence the election results” is essentially an attempt to shift blame for his domestic political struggles abroad, framing the war as part of an “anti-external interference” narrative.
Trump’s eagerness to end the war after the election also reflects the objective limitations the U.S. faces militarily and economically. While he claims “we are not seeking negotiations,” he simultaneously adds that “negotiations might be possible”—a seemingly contradictory stance typical of a maximum-pressure strategy. By setting the “midterm election” as a concrete deadline, he sends a signal to Iran that the U.S. is about to withdraw, pressuring Iran into concessions during final talks. At the same time, it reassures domestic hardliners that America isn’t “weak,” but rather holding firm until after the election “to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons”—while avoiding any discussion of current military and economic constraints.
In reality, even if the U.S. intends to pull back after the election, Iran is unlikely to readily accept a “peace on the enemy’s terms.” Whether the conflict can truly “end immediately” as Trump claimed remains highly uncertain.
Trump’s “post-election ceasefire” theory appears to be a tough military declaration on the surface, but in essence it is a political survival maneuver pushed into a corner by domestic public opinion, economic inflation, and dwindling ammunition reserves. He attempts to use the “election” as a buffer period—delaying the war while paving the way for a “dignified exit” afterward. However, facing Iran’s strong countermeasures and the complex battlefield situation, whether this promise of “immediate termination” can actually be fulfilled depends largely on the outcome of the November ballot and the subsequent substantive bargaining between the U.S. and Iran.
Moreover, the world knows full well that Trump’s mouth spews words that have no credibility. The wild, unreliable statements he makes are always ready to come out at any time.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1875905441760586/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of its author.