艾萨克·牛顿爵士提出，对于每一个作用力，总有一个大小相等、方向相反的反作用力。这就是牛顿第三运动定律，也是所有科学中最重要的法则之一。
而牛顿物理学也能为我们揭示政治领域中的“反应”规律。
我们尚不清楚伊朗战争的规模或影响。但随着中期选举临近，将出现具有重大意义的政治反应。目前要理解战争的走向、可能出现的意外转折，以及其后果如何在中期选举中产生回响，还为时过早。
（图为：2026年2月28日，佛罗里达州棕榈滩，前总统唐纳德·特朗普在其Truth Social账号发布的视频截图中就伊朗作战行动发表声明。）(特朗普总统通过Truth Social/阿纳多卢通讯社/盖蒂图片社)
事态如何发展尚不明朗。但如此重大的事件总会带来一定的政治影响，而这场战争可能会为中期选举的走向定下基调。
让我们从特朗普总统的竞选承诺说起：他曾宣称“美国优先”，并承诺避免美国卷入外国冲突。然而，这一承诺如今已被打破。而且，这已经引发了“ MAGA 运动”支持者群体的一些不满。如果他们认为总统违背了关键竞选承诺，可能会选择背离共和党。
但到目前为止，大多数国会共和党人都支持总统。少数国会共和党人，包括肯塔基州共和党众议员托马斯·马西和俄亥俄州共和党众议员沃伦·戴维森，与民主党人立场一致，坚称特朗普在向伊朗派遣军队之前必须获得国会授权。
这并非小题大做，而是一个近乎“技术性”的争论。当然，关于宪法、战争权力以及谁有权“宣战”等问题确实存在重要争议。但这场战争权力的辩论可能不会引起众多选民的共鸣。然而，当总统违背了“不发动战争”的承诺而决定开战，这可能会给总统和国会共和党人在今年秋季的选举中带来潜在问题。那些感觉被总统背叛的选民可能会选择弃权。尤其是考虑到这似乎与总统竞选时承诺避免战争的立场背道而驰。
还有一个关键因素：“战争伤亡”的影响。
特朗普总统已明确表示，战争可能会造成人员伤亡，而且确实已经出现了伤亡情况。他似乎并不忌惮持久战，甚至不排除派遣地面部队的可能性。
让我们回顾1991年海湾战争的情况：当时美国及其盟友在伊拉克入侵科威特后对其发动进攻。时任总统老布什在该地区进行了数月的军事集结，并积极争取其他国家支持，还获得了国会的授权。这并非意味着获得了全面支持，但布什及其国会盟友向选民解释了行动的必要性。诚然，布什在1992年的总统选举中失利，但在几个月前，公众还是支持这场战争的。当时有爱国旗帜飘扬、爱国游行举行，还有惠特尼·休斯顿在超级碗比赛中演唱国歌的传奇时刻。
战争初期，老布什的支持率飙升至惊人的89%。但17个月后，由于经济问题，支持率暴跌至约30%。
所以，假设这场战争进展顺利且伤亡有限，国会共和党人或许能搭乘特朗普的顺风车。如果全国范围内掀起爱国浪潮，共和党甚至可能将几个原本支持民主党的选区纳入囊中。
但如果战争持续时间过长且伤亡惨重，或者美国民众不理解为何要介入伊朗，情况就会变得危险。到目前为止，特朗普列举了一系列美国袭击伊朗的理由，但国会民主党人对这些解释并不认同。
“政权更迭”如果成功推翻独裁者固然是好事，但对于威斯康星州一位挣扎在温饱线上的日工来说，这一目标意义不大。
此外，还要关注油价走势。霍尔木兹海峡是波斯湾通往公海的唯一航运通道，也是臭名昭著的“石油咽喉”。通过该海峡的石油运输量正迅速下降，而液化天然气（LNG）也是通过此海峡运输的大宗商品之一。不久前，民主党人和选民还坚信2026年中期选举的焦点将是“物价可负担性”。如果燃油价格上涨导致通货膨胀，进而使商品和服务成本增加（因为运输成本上升），选民将会强烈反对。
战争可能成为中东地区局势的“引爆点”，导致该地区陷入混乱。同样，中东的动荡对于缅因州北部的摇摆选民来说可能影响不大，但这种规模的不稳定可能会冲击市场、推高物价，并影响商店货架上商品的供应。如果中国或俄罗斯以某种方式介入，风险将呈几何级数增长。
最大的“变量”是：恐怖主义。
有可能发生的严重恐怖袭击——尤其是针对美国本土的袭击——可能会促使选民“团结在国旗之下”，反而支持共和党。看看小布什总统在“9·11”事件后如何获得支持，以及2002年中期选举中共和党如何打破常规，在通常情况下总统所在政党会在中期选举中平均失去27个众议院席位，但2002年却是现代中期选举中总统所在政党罕见地获得席位的三次之一。
不过，也有一些选民可能会认为，为了反恐而轰炸伊朗所带来的后果和人员伤亡是不值得的。这可能会反过来对总统和国会共和党人造成负面影响。
然而，民主党在反恐问题上也面临挑战。近三周以来，民主党拒绝为国土安全部（DHS）拨款，除非对方修改移民和海关执法局（ICE）的政策。反对ICE符合民主党的基本盘。但如果发生重大恐怖袭击，民主党可能会陷入困境。这就是为什么众议院共和党人本周将迫使民主党就一项拨款法案进行投票，以记录其立场。
是的，共和党认为国土安全部必须全面运作，尤其是在当前局势下。但共和党希望选民明白，在世界舞台动荡不安、伊朗战争升级之际，是谁阻碍了国土安全部的资金支持。如果不幸在资金停发期间发生重大恐怖袭击，继续反对国土安全部拨款可能会让民主党自食其果。中期选举的广告几乎会自动生成：“民主党阻挠国土安全部拨款以支持恐怖主义？”
正如牛顿第三定律所言：“每一个作用力都有一个大小相等、方向相反的反作用力。”我们现在还无法计算伊朗战争在今年秋季中期选举中可能引发的同等规模的“反作用力”，但肯定会有某种形式的反应。
不过，牛顿第一运动定律或许能更广泛地解释中期选举的影响。牛顿曾写道：“静止的物体保持静止，运动的物体保持运动。”
在特朗普发动战争之前，伊朗问题一直处于“静止”状态。而现在，伊朗问题已经“运动起来”，要想让其停下来将变得更加困难。
Sir Isaac Newton postulated that for every action, there is always an equal and opposite reaction. It’s Newton’s Third Law of Motion and one of the most important rules in all of science.
And Newtonian physics can tell you a great deal about reactions in politics.
We don’t yet know the dimension or the impact of the war in Iran. But there will be a political reaction of great importance as we head toward the midterms. It’s just too early to understand how the war will go, what unexpected twists it may take and how its consequences might reverberate through the midterms.
A screengrab from a video released on President Donald Trump’s Truth Social account shows him making statements regarding combat operations on Iran on Feb. 28, 2026, in Palm Beach, Fla.(President Trump via Truth Social/Anadolu via Getty Images)
How things unfold is unclear. But an event of this breadth and proportion always poses some political impact. And the war may chart the course for the midterms.
Let’s start with President Donald Trump’s campaign promises that he was “America First” and would keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. Well, that’s out the window. And there’s already some friction with the MAGA base. They may bolt if they believe the president reneged on one of his key campaign promises.
But so far, most congressional Republicans are standing beside the president. A handful of congressional Republicans — including Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Warren Davidson, R-Ohio — agree with Democrats and assert that Trump must come to Congress before sending troops into harm’s way.
Not to downplay this, but it’s almost a “technical” argument. Yes, there are important questions about the Constitution, war powers and who has the right to “declare war.” But the war powers debate probably doesn’t resonate with a lot of voters. However, the decision to go to war when the president promised otherwise could pose potential problems for the president and congressional Republicans this fall. Voters who feel betrayed by the president could just stay home. Especially since it appears to fly in the face of the president’s campaign promise against starting wars.
Then there’s the body bag factor.
President Donald Trump confirmed the launch of U.S. strikes on Iran on Feb. 28, 2026.(Contributor/Getty Images)
Trump has been forthright, suggesting that there are possibilities of casualties. And there have already been some. He also doesn’t feel inhibited about a protracted war or even putting boots on the ground.
Remember what happened during the first Gulf War as the U.S. and allies went after Iraq after it invaded Kuwait in 1991. Then-President George H.W. Bush studiously courted other nations during a multi-month buildup in the region and secured the blessing from Congress. That’s not to say there was support across the board. But Bush and those aligned with him on Capitol Hill made the case to voters. Granted, Bush lost re-election in 1992. But some months earlier, the public embraced the campaign. There was flag waving. There were patriotic marches. There was the legendary performance of the national anthem by Whitney Houston at the Super Bowl.
The president’s approval rating spiked to a staggering 89% in the early days of the war. But it cratered to around 30% 17 months later because of the economy.
So let’s say the war goes well and casualties are limited. Congressional Republicans could ride the coattails of Trump. Republicans may even be able to put a few districts into their camp if a wave of patriotism sweeps over the country.
But watch out if this is a drawn-out campaign and casualties are high. Or, if Americans don’t understand why the U.S. is involved. So far, Trump has given a litany of reasons why the U.S. attacked Iran. Congressional Democrats don’t like the answers they are hearing.
Regime change is certainly good if you toss out dictators. But that means little to a day laborer who voted in Wisconsin and is struggling to make ends meet.
A driver refuels a vehicle at a Wawa gas station in Media, Pa., on March 2, 2026.(Matthew Hatcher/Bloomberg/Getty Images)
Also, watch the price of gasoline. The Strait of Hormuz is the only shipping lane from the Persian Gulf to the open sea and a notorious choke point. The transport of oil through the strait is already declining rapidly. Another commodity moved through the strait is liquefied natural gas (LNG). It wasn’t that long ago that Democrats and voters were convinced that the 2026 midterms were going to be about affordability. Voters will balk if inflation sets in with fuel — to say nothing of the cost of goods and services because it’s more expensive to transport things.
There’s a risk that the war is a tipping point for the region and the Middle East devolves into chaos. Again, mayhem in the Middle East won’t matter much to a swing voter in northern Maine. But instability of that magnitude has the potential to shock markets, drive up prices and impact the availability of products on store shelves. And the risks are geometrically more complicated if China or Russia somehow get involved.
Then there is the biggest wild card: terrorism.
It’s possible that a heinous terrorist attack — especially on U.S. soil — could spur voters to rally ‘round the flag and actually help the GOP. Look at how President George W. Bush gained support after 9/11. And consider the fact that Republicans went against the historic norm and actually gained seats in the 2002 midterms. The party of the president usually loses an average of 27 House seats in the first midterm. But 2002 was one of only three instances that the president’s party picked up seats in a modern midterm election.
That said, some voters may argue that the consequences and carnage of a terrorist attack weren’t worth bombing Iran. So that has the potential to backfire on the president and congressional Republicans.
However, Democrats have some exposure to the terrorism issue. Democrats have refused to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)for nearly three weeks as they demand changes to ICE. Fighting against ICE resonates with the Democratic base. But Democrats could be in trouble if there’s a major terrorist attack. That’s why House Republicans are forcing a vote this week to get Democrats on the record on a bill to fund DHS.
Yes, Republicans believe DHS should be fully operational. Especially now. But Republicans want voters to understand who blocked funding DHS as the U.S. enters a tumultuous period on the world stage and the war in Iran deepens. Continuing to oppose money for DHS could come back to haunt Democrats if, God forbid, there’s a major terrorist attack during the funding lapse. The ads for the midterms practically write themselves.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, said Newton in his Third Law of Motion. We can’t yet calculate the equal pushback that’s likely coming as a consequence of the war in Iran in the fall midterms. But there will be something.
But perhaps Newton’s First Law of Motion has even broader application to understanding the impact in the midterms. Newton wrote that an object at rest stays at rest. And an object in motion stays in motion.
Things were “at rest” with Iran until Trump started the war. And now the Iran issue is “in motion.” That makes it more challenging to stop it.
