Central warning

Political-risk scholar Robert Pape argues that the period around the U.S. midterm election and the transfer of power could be exceptionally dangerous. He sees three overlapping risks:

• U.S. political violence during election counting, certification, and the seating of a new Congress.
• Further escalation of the Iran war, potentially involving U.S. strikes and retaliation.
• Russian escalation in Ukraine, particularly attacks on energy infrastructure.

Pape emphasizes that these outcomes are possibilities, not certainties, and says escalation can still be prevented.

Why the U.S. midterms matter

• Midterms determine control of the House and Senate, which can constrain the president through oversight, subpoenas, and impeachment.
• If Democrats gain control of Congress, Pape expects intense political conflict and possible disruption within the administration.
• He identifies the period between voting and the transfer of power as particularly risky, citing the events leading up to January 6.
• He describes “violent populism” as political violence moving from the fringe into the mainstream, with a large number of Americans reportedly expressing support for political force on opposing sides.

Iran: the “escalation trap”

Pape describes an escalation trap as a situation where a stronger country’s attacks achieve immediate tactical results but strengthen the weaker side’s position or resolve, prompting further escalation.

His account of the Iran conflict is that:

• U.S. and Israeli attacks have not forced Iran to concede, while disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz have contributed to economic pressure.
• A reported three-day U.S. strike plan could target military leadership, missile and drone facilities, and economic infrastructure.
• Pape warns that such a campaign could expand, fail to produce a negotiating partner, and trigger Iranian retaliation against regional infrastructure.
• He also warns of civilian casualties and possible attacks by individuals acting independently, rather than under direct government orders.
• If the conflict broadens, he says it could draw in ground forces and lead to a prolonged war and expanded emergency powers.

Russia and Ukraine

• Pape says Putin wants more Ukrainian territory than Russia currently controls and may escalate if he concludes Trump cannot secure it through negotiations.
• He identifies attacks on Ukrainian power infrastructure as a possible winter escalation, potentially causing prolonged outages in major cities.
• He warns that severe cyberattacks or infrastructure disruption in Europe could create public pressure for retaliation against Russia, raising the risk of direct conflict between major powers.
• He distinguishes proxy wars from a world war, which he defines as major powers directly attacking one another’s homelands and forces.

Possible effects on the public

Pape anticipates that simultaneous conflicts could increase energy prices, worsen economic uncertainty, and fuel public unrest. The interview discusses the UK’s advice to keep emergency supplies, including water, food, batteries, radios, and cash. Pape questions whether household stockpiles can meaningfully address prolonged or repeated disruptions, and argues that preventing escalation is more important.

Proposed ways to reduce risk

Pape proposes three “firebreaks”:

1. Congressional restraint: Members of Congress should oppose further U.S. escalation in Iran until the new Congress is seated, unless Iran strikes first.
2. Limit armed federal deployments: Governors and mayors should seek a temporary pause on federally armed agents in their cities unless local leaders request them.
3. Protect civilians: Mediating countries should urge all parties to avoid targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure.

He encourages the public to contact political leaders and advocate for these measures.

Overall takeaway

The interview presents a chain of risks in which U.S. political turmoil, the Iran war, and Russia’s war in Ukraine could intensify one another. Pape’s core message is that escalation is not inevitable: political leaders can create restraint, while public attention and advocacy may help prevent the most dangerous outcomes.