Abbott: Election Over, War Escalation Hikes Heating Costs for Americans

In a column, Van Abbott argues that Washington can claim political victory after the November 3 election, but the next heating-oil bill will deliver a verdict no politician can spin away. Abbott, who has lived in Alaska for 36 years and served as a municipal, financial and utility manager in Ketchikan, Fairbanks and Anchorage, notes that households gearing up for winter have no way to delay the cold, bargain with the furnace, or settle the delivery driver’s invoice with political rhetoric. Whatever happens in Washington, the heating bill still comes due.

Control of Congress may remain unsettled after Nov. 3, and any new majority’s term begins Jan. 3, 2027. The furnace keeps no such calendar. Nor can Americans assume every election contest will escape federal intervention.

When Geography Sets the Price of Warmth

Abbott points to Trump’s war with Iran moving from the battlefield into American homes, adding to the economic pressures families already face. Consider Alaska’s heating-fuel prices, he writes. According to the state’s Summer 2026 survey, the mean price stood at $7.97 per gallon across 90 surveyed, unsubsidized communities. The Western regional average was $9; Arctic Village reported $17. These are not abstract economic indicators. They show what keeping a home warm can actually cost.

For an illustrative 500-gallon purchase, $7.97 per gallon means a $3,985 bill. At $17, that same purchase costs $8,500. Geography and delivery constraints can impose an extraordinary financial penalty on families. For Alaskans who depend on heating oil, keeping the tank filled is not optional. The cold season stretches on, shipping costs run high, and a nearly empty tank in January pays no attention to the outcome of the November election.

Americans are being billed for this war twice, Abbott argues. The first bill goes to taxpayers, who finance military operations, deployments, and munitions. The second goes to families, as war-related energy and shipping pressures add to household costs. Neither cost disappears when the campaign ends.

Judge Dismisses Lawsuit After Appeal Filed

The column notes that in Alaska, Trump’s Justice Department sought to block certification under specified circumstances if Sullivan lost. A judge dismissed the lawsuit Nov. 1, and the department filed a notice of appeal. The case demonstrates why elections require lawful procedures, documented evidence, and respect for voters’ decisions, Abbott writes.

But the consequences of this election extend beyond who controls Congress. Another installment of the conflict may be coming. The Associated Press reported Oct. 28 that U.S. officials had warned regional allies to prepare for possible renewed strikes and retaliation. Its sources said Trump had not made a final decision. Readiness does not equal command, yet it still justifies Congress pressing for answers prior to the administration launching another attack.

On Oct. 26, the UN Secretary-General warned that renewed escalation could send the region out of control. The Security Council has condemned Iran’s attacks on neighboring countries and interference with maritime trade. But that condemnation is not itself authorization for another U.S. strike. Serious people argue that restraint carries risks, and it does. But the danger of doing nothing does not prove the wisdom of doing more.

Abbott also cites Reuters reporting that Russia and China are providing military-related support to Iran, including satellite imagery and weapons components. Such assistance complicates any strategy built on Tehran’s isolation. Both nations can raise the cost and complexity of this conflict for the United States without ever shooting at American troops.

Three Demands for Congress

Military force without defined objectives, diplomatic alternatives, and an exit strategy is not strength, Abbott writes. It is a commitment without an accounting. Lawmakers ought to insist on three items: a documented tally of the war’s expenses, an explicitly stated goal, and a workable strategy to safeguard commercial vessels. Committee hearings ought to determine the achievements of the operations so far, the price of additional measures, and the administration’s strategy for concluding the conflict.

GOP members have to choose between serving their constituents or bowing to a president insisting on their loyalty. Democrats, if they gain power, must do more than criticize. They must investigate, expose the costs, and impose limits. Elections mean little if the people elected refuse to exercise the authority voters gave them.

Targeted heating assistance may help families survive winter, but relief cannot replace scrutiny. Aid eases the burden; accountability scrutinizes the decisions adding to it. Before demanding another sacrifice, Abbott concludes, Trump must explain how escalation makes Americans safer rather than merely making their bills larger. A government that cannot explain the war should not send American families the bill for another one.

Keep reading