Two foreign stories broke over the weekend, eight days before the midterms, and both say something uncomfortable about how America deals with the world. In the Persian Gulf, President Trump told reporters there would be no strike on Iran "today," even as Qatari mediators landed in Tehran. In South America, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva won an unprecedented fourth term, defeating Flávio Bolsonaro, the son of a jailed former president whose cause Washington has championed for more than a year.

One story is about a war, the other about an election. Both raise the same question: does American foreign policy still work when it relies on threats, tariffs and favorites?

The U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran began on February 28. The April 8 ceasefire ended the heaviest fighting, though exchanges of fire around the Strait of Hormuz have continued, according to Dawn and other outlets. A Pakistan-brokered memorandum of understanding in June later unraveled, with each side accusing the other of violating it. The United States now maintains a naval counterblockade on Iranian ports, and a third aircraft carrier group has been sent toward the region.

On Sunday, asked whether strikes would resume, the president said, "No, there will not be a strike today." In the same breath, he framed his choice this way: "Do I make a deal with them, or do I finish them off?"

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Esmail Baghaei, told German broadcaster ARD that Tehran has "never walked away from the negotiating table or closed the door to diplomacy," and accused U.S. officials of demanding "complete surrender." Tehran is no reliable narrator. Its Revolutionary Guard laid mines in international shipping lanes, according to U.S. Central Command. Skepticism toward Iran is earned.

Skepticism toward Washington's strategy is earned as well. What exactly is the American goal eight months into this conflict? Regime change? A nuclear deal? Control of Hormuz? The president has offered each at different moments, and none consistently. Americans are paying for that confusion at the pump, with Brent crude settling near $117 a barrel on Friday.

Public opinion has been skeptical from the start. A Pew Research Center survey in March found 61 percent of Americans disapproved of Trump's handling of the Iran conflict, and 59 percent said the United States was wrong to use military force. The president has said he would not strike again before the November 3 midterms, according to The National. If a strike is wise, why wait for the election? If it is unwise, why threaten it at all?

Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Where is the congressional vote on a conflict that has now lasted most of the year? Qatar and Pakistan are doing the patient work of diplomacy. Washington should be leading that effort, not narrating it from the tarmac at Joint Base Andrews.

Now turn south. Lula won the October 25 runoff with 51.8 percent of valid votes to 48.2 percent for Flávio Bolsonaro, a margin of about 4.4 million votes, according to Brazil's electoral court. He did it two days before his 81st birthday, after trailing in the first round, when Bolsonaro led 47.03 percent to 45.16 percent. Several final polls, including Datafolha and AtlasIntel, showed the race tied or leaning Bolsonaro.

Bolsonaro has refused to accept the outcome. "It is impossible to recognize the results," he said. "I am going to request the annulment of these elections." His father, former President Jair Bolsonaro, is serving a 27-year sentence for attempting a coup after losing to Lula in 2022.

President Trump never formally endorsed Flávio Bolsonaro. After the first round, he called Bolsonaro's narrow lead a "very, very big victory." His administration's record speaks louder. In July 2025, Washington imposed 50 percent tariffs on Brazilian goods, citing the "persecution" of Jair Bolsonaro. It revoked visas for eight Brazilian Supreme Court justices and placed Justice Alexandre de Moraes under Magnitsky sanctions, which were quietly lifted in December. Reuters, citing ten current and former officials, reported that two State Department officials told diplomats it was U.S. policy to restore Jair Bolsonaro to power.

Orna Blum, who led the State Department's Brazil office before retiring, told Reuters that "the line between diplomacy and political intervention has been crossed." Analysts quoted in the same report said the tariffs boosted Lula's poll numbers, as he framed American pressure as an attack on Brazilian sovereignty.

Ask a simple question. How would Americans react if a foreign government slapped tariffs on our exports to protest the prosecution of a former president? We would rally around our own institutions. Brazilians did much the same.

There is a version of this foreign policy that its supporters defend in good faith. They argue that pressure works, that adversaries respect strength, and that Washington should back allies who share its values. Some of that is fair. Iran's leaders have earned no benefit of the doubt, and Latin America's rightward shift in Argentina, Chile and Peru shows that conservative movements can win on their own merits.

Pressure, however, is a tool, not a strategy. In Iran, threats without clear goals have produced eight months of conflict, higher oil prices and stalled talks. In Brazil, tariffs and sanctions aimed at helping one political family may have helped elect the man they were meant to defeat. State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said, "the Brazilian people have the right to choose their leaders through free and fair elections." They just did.

What will Washington do now? Will it work with a re-elected Lula on trade, the Amazon and regional security, or punish Brazil for its choice? Will it give Qatari mediators real room to reach a deal, or keep the "finish them off" option dangling over every conversation?

Foreign policy rarely decides midterm elections. It should still be on the ballot. Voters can ask candidates for Congress three things: Will you insist on a vote before any new strike on Iran? Will you oppose using tariffs to settle political scores in other democracies? Will you support diplomacy that is consistent enough for allies and adversaries to understand?

America is strongest when it is predictable, principled and patient. Right now, it is none of the three. How many more friends can we afford to lose?

Lula Wins, Iran Waits: Is American Pressure Now Working Against American Interests?

Similar Opinions

Latest in The Opinion Times

Why Overloaded Routers Grounded America: Explaining the FAA’s Aging Air Traffic System

Why the Microsoft Outage Exposed America’s Dangerous Dependence on One Tech Giant

What the Democratic Takeover Really Means for Trump’s Final Two Years

America’s Birth Rate Explained: What Fewer Babies Mean for Schools and Retirement

What the Data Really Shows About AI, Layoffs and America’s Youngest Workers