Posted on September 21, 2026
Donald Trump is talking about war like a man choosing a prize on a game show.
On September 20 and 21, he said his choices for Iran were “wiping Iran out,” letting its economy “rot,” or making a deal. He then asked, “if and when do I blow the entire nation up?” Al Jazeera reported on Trump's “deciding mode”, while NBC News reported his threats and Iran's warning of new weapons.
This is not careful presidential language. It is a threat to destroy a nation, mixed with a claim that he might still negotiate.
At the same time, Trump has tied the war to the 2026 midterm elections. On September 9, he said the war would end “immediately after our election.” He also said gas prices would fall after the election. CNN's report on Trump's midterm prediction and Al Jazeera's account of the same remarks both documented the statement.
That matters because he connected two major national decisions to one political date:
- The end of a war
- The return of lower gas prices
A war should end because military goals have been met or because diplomacy has produced a safe agreement. It should not appear to remain open until an election is over. That is why Trump's critics argue that he is using the Iran conflict as both a foreign policy crisis and a campaign prop.
How the Iran war reached this point
The conflict did not begin in September. It grew through several rounds of strikes, threats, talks, and broken promises.
- June 2025: Israel struck Iranian nuclear and military sites. Iran fired back. The United States struck Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22. A ceasefire followed on June 24.
- February 28, 2026: The United States and Israel launched coordinated strikes on Iran. Iran retaliated across the region.
- June 2026: The United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding. A memorandum is a written statement of shared intentions. It is not the same as a final peace treaty. Qatar and Pakistan helped mediate, and the two sides had 60 days to negotiate a larger deal.
- August 2026: Trump threatened an “economic D-Day” through sanctions. Sanctions are financial and trade penalties meant to pressure a government.
- September 2026: The 60-day window expired without a final agreement. Fighting and tension returned. The Strait of Hormuz remained badly disrupted.
Al Jazeera's timeline of the strikes and failed talks explains how military action began while nuclear discussions were still taking place. The BBC reported that the June agreement left major issues unresolved, including Iran's nuclear program, sanctions, reconstruction, missiles, and regional groups backed by Iran.
The result is not peace. It is a frozen conflict, meaning the fighting may slow without the main dispute being solved.
Americans are paying for the war
The cost is not limited to military budgets. It reaches gas stations, grocery deliveries, farms, and family budgets.
CNN cited estimates that about 13 American service members had been killed by the June 2026 accounting. Civilians in the region also suffered casualties. The same analysis cited defense costs in the tens of billions. One estimate placed the cost at about $16.5 billion during one period of the war. Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs costs were estimated at about $1 billion.
These are estimates from analysts and trackers, not official final totals.
The Brown University energy tracker, cited in CNN's analysis of the war's costs, estimated that the average American household had paid about $253 more because of the conflict. That figure is also an estimate. It shows the basic point: war spending does not stay overseas. It can reach the household budget.
The Strait of Hormuz carries about 20 percent of the world's oil. When ships cannot safely pass through that waterway, the supply of oil becomes less certain. Brent crude rose above $100 a barrel at times. Gas prices rose above $4 a gallon in parts of the conflict.
Older Americans know what that means. It means a larger payment at the pump, higher delivery costs, and more pressure on prices in stores.
Oil companies profited while Trump complained
The war also created a clear political contradiction.
Oil companies made enormous profits as fighting and shipping problems pushed energy prices higher. CNN reported these quarterly profits:
- Saudi Aramco: about $33.4 billion
- ExxonMobil: about $14.5 billion
- Chevron: about $12.1 billion
- Shell: nearly $10 billion
Trump complained that oil companies were making too much money. But his own Iran policy helped create the conditions that raised oil prices. He pushed military escalation, accepted a long conflict, and then criticized companies that benefited from the higher prices.
That is not a serious energy plan. It is a cycle:
- Threats disrupt oil supplies.
- Oil prices rise.
- Families pay more.
- Oil companies report larger profits.
- Trump blames the companies and promises prices will fall after the election.
The CNN Business report on oil profits during the war documented that pattern. The Associated Press also reported on Trump's mixed messages about Iran, oil, and the midterms.
There is no public proof that Trump personally profited from the oil companies during the war. The political problem is different. He created or continued a policy that raised costs, then tried to claim credit for fixing the damage later.
The fundraising machine moves in beside the war
It helps to understand three basic terms.
- A campaign is the official political organization that supports a candidate.
- A super PAC is a political committee that can raise and spend large sums independently of a candidate, though it cannot legally coordinate directly with the campaign.
- A fundraising email asks supporters for money. It may offer a membership, merchandise, access, or an emotional reason to donate.
Raising political money is legal and normal. The ethical question is how that money is requested.
The New York Times reported that a Never Surrender fundraising email used an image of Trump saluting as the caskets of American service members killed by an Iranian drone strike arrived at Dover Air Force Base. The email promoted a paid “National Security Briefing Membership.”
That is a serious ethical problem. A military funeral should not be treated like a sales image. Families who lost loved ones should not have to see their grief turned into a donation pitch.
The AP reported that Trump's political network raised well over $1.5 billion across allied committees. The network drew support from large donors and corporate interests. That gives Trump major influence over Republican politics and creates a powerful reason for his allies to keep presenting war as a test of loyalty.
The available reporting does not prove that every Iran statement was written as a direct fundraising appeal. It does show a political machine that can turn fear, anger, and military imagery into money.
Trump's promise to end wars has collapsed
Trump campaigned as the president who would stop “forever wars.” A forever war is a conflict that continues without a clear end, victory, or exit plan.
The record shows something very different in Iran.
Trump's critics argue that he attacks past presidents for long wars while keeping his own war open. Reuters described the Iran campaign as increasingly similar to the post-9/11 forever wars. The source link provided for that report identifies the same Reuters coverage, though the page may require a live news subscription.
His advisers reportedly warned him to focus on the economy before the midterms. Reuters reported on those warnings and Trump's push toward war. Polling showed little appetite for another war. Even parts of Trump's own base were split between supporting military action and wanting him to keep his promise to end wars.
This does not mean every Republican or every veteran opposes Trump. It means the political coalition supporting him is not as united as his speeches suggest.
The hypocrisy is plain:
- He says he wants lower costs, but the war pushed energy costs higher.
- He says he opposes government propaganda, but his political allies used war imagery to sell memberships.
- He says he wants to end wars, but he has not provided a clear exit plan.
- He says Iran is near collapse, yet the war continues months later.
- He says the conflict will end after the election, making the election calendar part of the war plan.
Diplomacy is still possible, but no deal exists
Iran sent conditions for ending the war through Qatar. Pakistan also played a role in mediation. Iran demanded:
- An end to fighting on all fronts
- The release of frozen Iranian money
- An end to the US naval blockade
- An end to US attacks on Iranian territory
- An end to US interference in Iran's internal affairs
Iran also threatened painful retaliation and new weapons if the United States attacked again. Al Jazeera's report on Iran's conditions described the gap between the two sides.
Trump claimed that direct talks had taken place. Iran did not confirm direct negotiations. As of September 21, 2026, the conditions remained unmet and there was no final peace agreement.
Why this is a scandal, in plain English
A scandal is not only a crime. It can also be a betrayal of public trust or an abuse of power.
The concerns here are serious:
- The end of the war appears tied to an election date.
- The war has been used in political fundraising.
- A military funeral image was used to sell a paid membership.
- The human cost includes dead American service members and civilian casualties.
- The financial cost is measured in tens of billions.
- The public has received conflicting statements about the war's length, its goals, and the chance of a deal.
These facts raise accountability questions. They do not prove that Trump committed a crime connected to the war. They do show why the public deserves more than threats, slogans, and fundraising emails.
Trump and Iran: what to remember
- Trump said the war would end right after the midterms.
- He said gas prices would fall after the election.
- He described his options as wiping out Iran, letting its economy rot, or making a deal.
- Iran demanded an end to the naval blockade and the release of frozen funds.
- The Strait of Hormuz carries about 20 percent of the world's oil.
- US gas prices rose above $4 a gallon in parts of the conflict.
- Analysts put defense costs in the tens of billions and estimated about $253 in extra household costs.
- Allies fundraised off the war and used a Dover ceremony image in a paid membership pitch.
Fact-check
Documented facts
Trump publicly tied the end of the war and lower gas prices to the period after the midterm elections. He later said he was in “deciding mode” and described destruction, economic pressure, and a deal as his options. The war caused military, energy, and household costs. Oil companies reported large profits during the crisis. Political groups tied to Trump raised large sums, and reporting described a fundraising email using a Dover ceremony image.
Claims and disputes
Trump claimed Iran was delaying the war to affect the midterms. Iran rejected the idea that it had accepted Trump's terms. Trump claimed direct talks, but Iran did not confirm them. Both sides accused the other of violating the June understanding.
What the evidence does not show
There is no public proof that Trump personally profited from oil companies during the war. There is no proof that he set the war's end date to help himself in a criminal sense. There is no final peace agreement as of September 21, 2026.
Trump says he is deciding between destroying a country, crushing its economy, or making a deal. He also says the war will end right after the election.
A president should not treat war and the price of gas like campaign props. Americans deserve a clear strategy, honest costs, respect for service members and their families, and a decision made for the country instead of for an election calendar.