By Lina Irawan 
Ross’s insights underscore the profound political risks inherent in the current global climate. The narrative of "affordability" has rapidly escalated into a potent political lightning rod, a sentiment amplified by the president’s own campaign promises. While other domestic issues, particularly immigration, are undoubtedly shaping voter perceptions in the run-up to the midterms, the cost of living, inextricably linked to energy prices, holds a disproportionate sway over public sentiment.
The Iran conflict, despite its relatively short duration in a historical context, has proven to be a persistent thorn in the administration’s side, especially given initial rhetoric suggesting a swift resolution "within a matter of weeks." This miscalculation has contributed to a sense of prolonged instability, frustrating both Wall Street and the American electorate. Ross emphasized, "We’re about to go into the midterm elections, and so there’s an unusual political factor which I’m sure both sides are aware of. The Iranians seem to be betting that they can outlast the president, and that has been a characteristic theory of their prior discussions." He further elaborated on the military reality: "The war itself, in a kind of technical sense, is over. Iran has no air force, they have no real navy, they have no air defense, so in that sense, it’s over. The question is, can we win the peace? And that’s what Hormuz is about." This distinction highlights the shift from conventional warfare to a more nuanced, prolonged struggle for regional influence and economic control, particularly over vital maritime choke points.
The economic repercussions of the re-escalation in the Middle East are already palpable for American consumers. The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway bordering Iran, serves as the single most important transit point for global oil shipments. Approximately one-fifth of the world’s total petroleum consumption, or about 21 million barrels per day, passes through this strait. Any disruption, real or perceived, sends ripples through global energy markets. Despite the president’s assurances of U.S. control, the increased risk of maritime incidents has led to hesitancy among shipping companies, effectively constricting supply even as global demand remains robust. This imbalance inevitably pushes oil prices upward.
Adding another layer of complexity, the Houthis, an Iran-backed terror group operating from Yemen, have recently initiated attacks on commercial shipping in the Bab al-Mandab Strait. Located at the southern end of the Red Sea, this strait is another critical maritime artery, funneling oil and goods from the Persian Gulf and Asia to Europe and North America via the Suez Canal. The simultaneous targeting of both major chokepoints significantly escalates the threat to global trade and energy supply, ensuring continued upward pressure on prices at the pump. For the average American household, this translates directly into higher costs for transportation, heating, and ultimately, a broader inflationary impact on nearly all goods and services.
Ross’s most stark warning concerned the immediate political peril: "If oil gets back up to $5 a gallon at the pump, that’s gonna make the midterms very, very difficult. And, if he loses both houses in the midterms, he will be impeached." This statement underscores the historical sensitivity of American voters to gasoline prices, often viewed as a direct barometer of economic health and governmental competence. A significant rise in fuel costs can erode consumer confidence, dampen discretionary spending, and fuel widespread discontent, potentially swinging crucial races. The prospect of losing both the House and the Senate would not only cripple the president’s legislative agenda but, as Ross suggests, could pave the way for impeachment proceedings, fundamentally altering the political landscape.
Should a split Congress emerge, with Democrats potentially controlling the House and Republicans retaining the Senate, the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, particularly his prerogative to make or conduct war, could face significant new restrictions. This shift in power dynamics would necessitate greater congressional oversight and potentially force a more collaborative, or confrontational, approach to international crises.
The alternative scenario, a premature withdrawal from the conflict without a clear resolution, presents its own set of grave political risks. Ross explained, "If he pulled out without this being resolved, and [Iran] do impose some huge fines or what have you on Hormuz, then the Democrats have a very nice storyline: ‘What was the war all about? Look what we got for it: We’ve got the high oil prices, and we don’t have peace.’" This narrative would allow the opposition to frame the conflict as a costly and ultimately fruitless endeavor, further damaging the president’s credibility on foreign policy and economic management. Therefore, while some might speculate about a pre-midterm withdrawal to appease voters, Ross remains unconvinced, stating, "People saying ‘Oh, he’s gonna have to pull out before the midterms,’ I’m not so sure that’s true." He added that a withdrawal would not automatically bring down prices, as the Iranians would likely continue to exert leverage over the Strait of Hormuz. "I can’t imagine if he pulled out the Iranians, suddenly saying, ‘Well, we’ve decided to play nice, then there won’t be any constraints on Hormuz.’ That’s not gonna happen. The midterms are a factor, [but] I think it’s probably influencing the Iranians more than it is the Americans." This suggests Iran’s strategic calculus is heavily factoring in the U.S. political cycle, aiming to exploit internal divisions and electoral pressures.
The Big Oil Option: A Domestic Pressure Point
Beyond the geopolitical chessboard, President Trump has also opened a new front in his battle against rising prices, turning his attention to domestic energy producers. In a recent Truth Social post, the president accused "Big Oil" companies of "gouging" consumers by failing to commensurately drop pump prices despite a "dropping like a rock" crude oil market. This accusation is not unprecedented; politicians frequently target oil companies during periods of high gas prices, alleging price manipulation or excessive profiteering. Historically, such accusations have led to investigations and public outcry, though definitive proof of widespread illegal gouging is often elusive due to the complex nature of the oil supply chain, which includes refining costs, transportation, marketing, and local taxes.
Responding to these concerns, the president announced, "I have instructed the DOJ to immediately start looking into this. Gasoline prices better start going down a lot faster than what I’m seeing!" This directive to the Department of Justice signals a potential antitrust investigation, a move that could significantly pressure major oil companies. Ross supported this stance, noting the almost instantaneous jump in pump prices following any military action, arguing that such increases are often not justified given the time it takes for crude oil to be processed and distributed as refined gasoline. "The pump price isn’t really justified to go up the same day because the oil hasn’t found its way through," he explained, highlighting the lag between crude price fluctuations and retail gasoline prices.
Ross anticipated a two-pronged approach from the president: "I would expect that [Trump] would be putting increasing pressure on them to do two things. One, not to expand the margins of the gas stations themselves, and two, to produce more." The first point addresses the retail markup, suggesting an investigation into the profitability of fuel distributors and gas stations. The second point, however, delves into the broader issue of domestic energy supply. Despite the U.S. being a major oil producer, Ross observed that oil companies "have been relatively constrained in the amount of increase in their production."
Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) corroborates a modest increase in domestic oil production. The U.S. is projected to produce an average of 13.8 million barrels per day in 2026, a slight uptick from 13.6 million barrels per day a year prior. While these figures represent near-record levels of U.S. production, the pace of increase has not been as rapid as some political figures or consumers might desire, especially when compared to the investment cycles and production surges seen in previous decades. Factors influencing this restraint include shareholder pressure for capital discipline, environmental regulations, supply chain bottlenecks for drilling equipment, and a general industry shift towards renewable energy investments, which may deter long-term commitments to fossil fuel extraction.
The interplay of these factors—geopolitical instability in critical oil-producing regions, the delicate balance of political messaging, and the domestic pressure on energy companies—creates a volatile environment. For President Trump, navigating these turbulent waters will be the defining challenge leading up to the midterms. The outcome will not only determine the legislative control of Congress but could also fundamentally reshape the trajectory of his administration and the direction of American foreign and economic policy for years to come. The stakes could not be higher, as the price of a gallon of gasoline has become a potent symbol of broader economic anxiety and political accountability.
