The 2026 midterm elections in the United States produced a result that is difficult to interpret without considering a central factor: the war against Iran, which began on 28 February with the "Epic Fury" operation.

The Democrats won both the House of Representatives and the Senate, inflicting a historic defeat on Trump and the Republican Party.

But what makes this vote particularly significant for the peace movement is the way in which the war became the terrain on which the electoral battle was fought: not as a foreign policy issue among others, but as a factor that directly impacted the cost of living and the perception of instability, transforming the vote into an explicit demand for military disengagement.

The relationship between war and the economy has been clear. Before the attack, the price of oil was $67 a barrel; after the start of hostilities, it surged to $99, remaining steadily at those levels for eight months. The average price of petrol in the United States rose from $2.98 to $4.25 a gallon. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of the global oil supply passed, amplified the effect.

This dynamic has made the war a domestic issue, not an international one. As Clifford Young of Ipsos noted, voters explicitly linked the price of fuel to American military actions in the Middle East for the first time. The result is that the war, which began as a foreign policy choice, has transformed into a factor eroding domestic consensus, particularly affecting that electoral base to which Trump had promised to end endless conflicts.

Trump himself admitted, in an interview with Fox News, that the war against Iran weighed "in part" on the electoral results. This is a significant admission, as it confirms that the White House was aware of the link between war and economic discontent.

From the Iranian side, the Speaker of Parliament and chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf commented on the results with a phrase that summarises the stakes well: "For conscience or for the cost of living, Americans said NO TO WAR, and we endorse this message.” Beyond the propaganda, the reading is correct: the vote was also a referendum on the war.

Now the American electorate, after two decades of conflicts in the Middle East, shows a growing impatience towards military adventures that do not yield tangible results but weigh on family budgets.

For us pacifists, this electoral outcome offers several points for reflection. Firstly, it confirms that war is not just a moral issue or a matter of international law: it is also an economic issue that touches people's daily lives. The link between military spending, geopolitical instability, and inflation is an argument that the peace movement can and must use to build broader alliances.

Secondly, the Democratic victory does not automatically mean a pacifist turn. As evidenced by the critical positions expressed by figures such as Medea Benjamin of Code Pink, the American peace movement has not developed a "honeymoon" with the Democrats. The demand for an end to the war and a return to diplomacy must be made with the same determination towards the new congressional majority.

Finally, the Republican defeat opens up a concrete political space: a Democratic Congress now has the opportunity to pressure the administration to end the conflict and reopen diplomatic channels. If this does not happen, positive political participation could quickly turn into new anger.

In addition to the war against Iran, there is the issue of the US rearmament plan contested by American pacifists. The budget for the US armed forces for fiscal year 2027 presented by the Trump administration amounts to $1.5 trillion, with an increase of 42% compared to fiscal year 2026. It is the largest military budget in US history. Its contestation stems from the fact that, while massively increasing military spending, it drastically cuts domestic social programmes.

There will be ample space for the American peace movement to play its cards and apply intelligent pressure on policymakers.

It must already be acknowledged that this defeat of Trump did not come about on its own but was the result of intense mobilisation that saw participation driven by waves of activism, largely from pacifists, and a strong recourse to the use of social platforms.