Overview of ABC News Daily — “Will Trump ‘finish off’ Iran after the midterms?”
This episode examines whether Donald Trump may escalate the conflict with Iran after the US midterms, and why the White House appears trapped between hawkish pressure, political timing, and limited strategic options. Host Sam Hawley speaks with Cole Busey, a former CIA analyst and former director for Iran at the National Security Council, about the chances of renewed airstrikes, regime-change ambitions, Iranian retaliation, and whether Trump could instead declare victory and walk away.
Main Takeaways
-
The Iran conflict is now a major political issue in both Israel and the United States, but for different reasons:
- In Israel, the war influences the election but likely only shifts tactics, not the broader direction of policy.
- In the US, the war has become a political liability for Trump, especially because of inflation, gas prices, and the sense that the conflict remains unresolved.
-
Hawks around Trump want escalation, arguing for a “finish the job” approach against the Islamic Republic.
- That could mean more airstrikes, decapitation strikes, or even support for opposition forces.
- The goal, in their view, would be to destabilize or topple the regime.
-
Busey is skeptical escalation would work.
- He argues that without a massive ground war, airstrikes alone are unlikely to bring down the Iranian government.
- He also doubts economic pressure alone can force regime collapse.
-
Iran still has meaningful retaliation options.
- The main danger is Iranian strikes on Gulf infrastructure and regional targets with drones and missiles.
- That is one reason the US has hesitated to escalate further.
-
Trump’s real choices may be limited:
- Escalate
- Cut a deal
- Declare victory and exit
But each option has major political and strategic downsides.
What the Episode Says About Trump’s Options
1) Escalate the war
The episode suggests Trump may be considering another round of strikes after the midterms, possibly framed as a dramatic, high-profile operation.
Possible targets discussed include:
- Iran’s nuclear infrastructure
- Oil export facilities such as Kharg Island
- Leadership targets / decapitation strikes
Busey says this kind of action may be more about creating a “victory narrative” for media consumption than solving the underlying conflict.
2) Use economic pressure
Trump has already tried to squeeze Iran economically, but Busey says this has not produced collapse.
Key point:
- Iran’s economy is badly damaged, but history shows that severe economic suffering does not automatically produce regime change.
3) Walk away or declare victory
This is the option Trump might prefer, but the episode argues it is politically and strategically difficult.
Why?
- If he leaves while Iran still poses a threat, it looks like a retreat.
- Gas prices and regional instability may remain unresolved.
- US allies in the region may feel abandoned.
4) Cut a deal
The episode suggests a negotiated settlement may ultimately be the most realistic path.
- A “memorandum of understanding 2.0” or similar agreement could be the endgame.
- But any deal depends on who has leverage and whether the US believes it can live with the Islamic Republic.
Why the Midterms Matter
The midterms are presented as a possible turning point because they could change Trump’s political incentives:
- If Republicans do well, Trump may feel freer to escalate.
- If Democrats gain control of the House or Senate, they could pressure him through funding and oversight, making escalation harder.
- Trump could also use Democratic resistance as a political foil, blaming them for forcing a bad deal or constraining his options.
How Iran Might Respond
The episode stresses that Iran is not passive.
- Iranian officials are publicly signaling that they are in a “surprise phase” of the war.
- That rhetoric is partly bravado, but it reflects a real ability to retaliate.
- Iran’s most credible response would be attacks on vulnerable Gulf targets.
Busey frames this as one reason the conflict has remained in a dangerous stalemate.
Notable Insight
A central idea in the discussion is that Trump and his advisers may be searching for a dramatic, television-friendly end to the conflict — something that looks decisive even if it does not truly resolve the war.
In Busey’s view, the problem is that:
- airstrikes don’t guarantee regime change
- sanctions don’t guarantee collapse
- ground war is politically unthinkable
- and walking away leaves the problem unsolved
Bottom Line
The episode argues that Trump is under growing pressure to do something about Iran, especially after the midterms, but that every available option is risky. The most likely outcomes are either a limited escalation designed to project strength or a negotiated off-ramp — not a clean military solution.
Key People Mentioned
- Donald Trump — US president, facing pressure over the Iran conflict
- Cole Busey — former CIA analyst and former National Security Council director for Iran
- Benjamin Netanyahu — Israeli leader pushing a tougher line on Iran
- Iranian hardline leadership — signaling readiness to retaliate
- Saudi, Turkish, and Pakistani officials — highlighted as part of regional de-escalation efforts
Episode Context
This episode was framed around:
- the US midterm elections
- the Israeli election
- rising fears of a renewed conflict with Iran
- the strategic stalemate in the Gulf region