The conflict in the Middle East has entered the debate surrounding Brazil’s presidential election and has the potential to influence strategies by both the government and the opposition in the race for the Planalto Palace. Although the consequences for the domestic political landscape remain unpredictable, the war involving the United States and Israel against Iran could become a campaign issue, both in discussions of foreign policy and in reactions to possible inflationary pressures.
Economic repercussions at home are seen by specialists as a factor that could bring the war into the election debate, countering a historical pattern in which international tensions have had limited influence on Brazilian elections.
President Lula and the opposition—currently represented by the pre-candidacy of Senator Flávio Bolsonaro—may face both challenges and opportunities, according to analysts interviewed by Valor. The escalation in the Middle East, they say, combines two issues with domestic repercussions: economic effects, particularly on the cost of living, and the potential to mobilize ideological bases.
The attacks have mobilized supporters of both Lula and Flávio since the weekend, with the alignment with the United States becoming a central point of dispute. The senator used the Brazilian government’s official position—condemning the violation of Iranian sovereignty in the military operation that killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei—to criticize Lula for offering “political support” to an authoritarian regime. For the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil has taken “the wrong side” in the conflict.
The government camp has responded by once again highlighting the defense of national sovereignty, a theme that marked Brazil’s reaction to the U.S. tariff hike. Institutional Relations Minister Gleisi Hoffmann said Bolsonarism continues to “preach subservience” to Donald Trump even when the U.S. president “violates international law and carries out an attack that threatens world peace.”
Some factions within the Planalto Palace are concerned about the war’s impact on the oil market. The fear is that a rise in fuel prices could push up inflation in the middle of an election year, eroding the president’s approval ratings, which are already below the level expected by the Workers’ Party. Voting intention polls have shown a narrower gap between Lula and his opponents.
For political scientist and international relations specialist Fabio Andrade, geopolitical implications are unlikely to be fully absorbed by the average voter, but strategies adopted by the Brazilian right could allow an international issue to reverberate in the election. The ESPM professor argues that Flávio’s position resonates, for example, with segments of Brazil’s evangelical electorate that express support for Israel.
“A significant portion of voters will not even want to hear about foreign policy, but they may be influenced by narratives that appeal to their values,” Andrade said. “This is a hypothesis that could challenge the conventional understanding in political science that foreign policy has little influence on voting behavior.”
Another variable cited by the professor is the war’s impact on voters’ finances, which could worsen the public mood during the campaign. One option for the government could be to blame an unexpected external factor and “play the role of victim” to garner sympathy.
“A scenario of inflation, high interest rates, and the risk of recession is always bad for incumbent governments and favorable for the opposition. The opposition does not bear the costs of a deteriorating economic environment and can still attribute the problem to government incompetence,” Andrade added.
In the view of political consultant and strategist Felipe Soutello, who has coordinated state and national campaigns, the opposition has the advantage of not sharing the government’s institutional responsibility in the event of a potential crisis. However, what he calls “short-term opportunism” carries risks and may not necessarily translate into votes.
“I see the issue as having limited penetration among the voters as a whole and being used more as a tool to energize the existing bubble already connected to the Bolsonaro family’s candidacy. Acting prematurely may come at a cost later on. On the other hand, a prolonged war tends to hurt the government more, potentially neutralizing any gains it may have achieved in the economic sphere so far,” Soutello said.
Alcides Costa Vaz, a professor of international relations at the University of Brasília (UnB), agrees with the assessment that the war involving Iran “poses more challenges for the government” in the electoral dispute. He added, however, that the right “also fails to make clear what measures, proposals, or outcomes could result from a stronger alignment between Brazil and the United States.”
By condemning the attack on Iran, the government followed the Foreign Affairs Ministry’s diplomatic tradition of seeking peaceful solutions and respecting the self-determination of peoples—the defense of sovereignty had also been invoked in Brazil’s response to the U.S. offensive last year. According to a Genial/Quaest survey conducted in December, 54% of Brazilians said Lula and the Workers’ Party performed best in responding to the tariff hike, while 24% said Bolsonaro and his allies had taken the better stance.
Polarization in the country is likely to lead voters to interpret the Iran issue more through an ideological lens than a geopolitical one, according to Vaz. “It is a less rational and more impulsive process, marked by endorsement of one side or the other. The war and its developments may become an important part of the campaign, but not a decisive factor,” the UnB professor said.
