Imagine this. It’s 2024, and it’s the US presidential election. What are your main points of concern as a voter? Why the economy and healthcare, of course, with foreign policy way off in the distance in fourth place after the Supreme Court appointments. 

Two world-changing wars, thousands of sanctions, and half a world order later, what are your main concerns? Again, the economy tops the list. 

You might wonder why the economy has topped voters’ concerns for years, yet the foreign policy decisions driving so many of your most pressing economic woes still rank lower on your own list of priorities.

Never mind the war in Ukraine, which already put you on the path of sanctioning Russia and driving up fertilizer and diesel prices, but a months-long war on Iran in which one of the world’s most important pathways for oil is blocked seems like shooting yourself in the foot.

It almost seems like voters in the US still haven’t learned from these past decades: When their country goes to war, they’re the ones left footing the bill, except that this is a bill they have to read in fine print.

That’s what voters have come to see firsthand. The US-Israeli war on Iran and Trump’s tariff wars reach voters through expenses they usually classify as domestic: keeping a car on the road, buying oil for your engine, buying food, receiving a parcel. These choices travel through supply chains before becoming part of your calculations. You know life has become more expensive, but you’ve only just been able to place your finger on why.

Many Americans now recognize the connection, but whether they punish the governing party for it is a separate question.

The journey from war to checkout

You can see the fallout clearly through the motor-oil shortage. According to the Financial Times, one Iranian defensive strike during the war damaged a Qatari plant producing Group III base oils, essential ingredients in many synthetic lubricants. The war also disrupted supplies feeding other producers. US base-oil prices almost quadrupled from February to a record $12.45 a gallon, according to Argus data.

Valvoline raised oil-change prices by $5 to $7 after lubricant costs climbed 60% since March. Costco priced a ten-quart synthetic-oil package at $57.99, compared with about $30 last year, and limited purchases. Those are consumer costs, attached to a service many drivers cannot postpone indefinitely.

People don’t need to know the technical specifications of a lubricant to understand what another seven dollars means. The question is what they have to give up to find it, and whether they believe the people responsible will ever be asked the same question.

Fuel is another blow that voters felt. By October 16, AAA figures reported by AP put gasoline at $4.33 a gallon, 45% above its prewar level, and diesel at $6.33, up 68%. The second number reaches people who never drive a diesel vehicle: their groceries and household goods still require transport.

For a household asking how to get by before payday, paying for the commute can mean spending less elsewhere. Maintaining the car remains necessary precisely because losing it would make earning that money harder. So, they postpone a service, put off a journey, reconsider a purchase, and that’s just gas and oil for your own family.

Agriculture paints another picture. Natural gas helps produce nitrogen fertilizers, including urea; sulfur recovered from oil and gas processing is converted into sulfuric acid for phosphate fertilizers. IFPRI identifies disruption caused by the US-Israeli war on Iran as a threat to both supply routes. The consequences travel through crop production, animal feed, processing, refrigeration, and distribution before reaching consumers, who have to absorb the brunt of the price increases.

Russia adds another dimension to this confrontational policy adopted by the West. Western sanctions following the Ukraine war reshaped diesel trade, with Europe replacing Russian supplies and Russian cargoes seeking other buyers.

On October 9, the US Treasury authorized transactions involving Russian diesel. Washington was now effectively backtracking on its previous sanctions because Trump was in a bind so close to the elections.

Tariffs, now that’s another fumble that damaged ordinary people. Research published by the New York Fed estimates that the 2025–26 tariffs had added 2.9 percentage points to inflation in the non-oil consumer goods studied by February

The tariff contribution to annual inflation can fade while the price level remains elevated. A slower increase won’t restore the money already missing from a family budget.

Turns out America First is remarkably efficient at finding Americans to invoice.

Are voters making the connection?

The connection between foreign policy (i.e. war, tariffs, US meddling, etc.) and the troubles faced by the US economy cannot be ignored. But this is where optics matter. This is where the analysis should focus. Not simply on whether or not foreign policy has an impact, but how that impact is seen, and what decisions are made thereafter.

If narrative and media overtake reality, then this is where perception of the effects of the war matters. People who do not believe Trump made a mess of his war of choice and that they have to pay up for it out of their own pocket will be more likely to excuse Trump’s fiascos as cases of strategic “oops”, to put it in light terms.

So do people see these links themselves? A Chicago Council–Ipsos survey conducted May 1–3 found 86% of adults believed the Iran war was bad for the US cost of living. That included 76% of Republicans and 89% of independents. This was a question about perceived economic consequences, not simply whether respondents liked Trump.

The Council’s July survey found 81% considered tariffs bad for living costs, including 62% of Republicans. Yet 63% of Republicans said the Iran war had been worth fighting. Different questions reveal different judgments: Republicans recognize the economic cost of the war, but they won’t abandon the party over it because they’ve been made to believe this sacrifice was worth it.

The broader responsibility question is more divided. AP-NORC’s September poll found 65% attributed higher-than-usual prices to Trump’s policies. Among Republicans, however, 67% assigned higher prices to factors beyond his control. Beyond the fact that these prices can’t be attributed solely to any one reason, this goes to show how Trump’s popular base has found excuses for his blunders, in the sense that: “Yes, the cost of living is higher, yes, the sacrifice was worth it, but it’s not Trump’s fault; things just happened.”

This is exactly where the political campaigns operate, in that gap of understanding between fact and perception. A voter may feel the damage, even identify its connection to war, and still regard the president as justified. Another may interpret the same bill as evidence that the administration has broken its bargain with the public.

The bill reaches the ballot

In July’s Chicago Council survey, 37% selected inflation and living costs as their single most important voting concern; only 2% selected the Iran war. An October AP-NORC poll, allowing voters to identify several important issues, found 85% naming the economy and 84% living costs. It also found 79% disapproving of Trump’s handling of living costs. Together, these responses show an exposed administration facing an electorate preoccupied with affordability. They do not calculate how many votes any particular policy will cost it.

Democrats and allied groups are acting on that vulnerability. AP found that 61 of 65 distinct Iran-themed advertisements in competitive congressional races emphasized household costs. The ads aired more than 43,000 times from September 1 through October 14, costing an estimated $42 million. That measures the effort to turn war into an affordability issue, rather than proof that the effort persuaded anyone.

So foreign policy may help decide these midterms without ever topping voters’ lists under its own name. Farmers don't have to know the chemistry of fertilizer to vote against the cost of it. Trump is not on the ballot, but his congressional allies may discover that his foreign policy has followed them all the way into the voting booth. That's the main issue at stake. Yes, Trump's foreign policy choices have had terrible repercussions on the economy. Yes, voters do recognize that they're footing the bill for it. But does that translate to more of the same, or a change of course in the ballots?

Democrats have an opening, then. Whether they have an alternative is a less comfortable question. AP-NORC’s late-September poll found that 27% of registered voters trusted neither party to handle the cost of living. A Republican defeat would not automatically amount to faith in the opposition, much less an endorsement of whatever foreign policy it offers. 

If Democrats win a congressional majority, the test will be whether they challenge the policies behind those bills with the enthusiasm they're lambasting Trump in their ads. Otherwise, Americans could get a new congressional majority and the same expensive foreign policy, now with a more sympathetic complaints department.