American voters cast their ballots in the midterm elections, with results exceeding expectations in terms of the margin by which Democrats gained over Republicans.
Though the voting process was governed by daily life demands, its echoes were felt across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It is unsurprising that the world closely watched these elections, as the vote was seen by observers as akin to a referendum on the White House leader Donald Trump, who has personalized institutions and dominated media coverage around the clock.
The anomalies witnessed in these elections were significant, particularly with the Republicans losing a Senate seat in Kansas, which they had held since the 1930s, now claimed by the Democrats.
With internal American dynamics shaken, the outside world awaits the crystallization of the new American political composition and its repercussions on international affairs.
The foremost issue emerging among international affairs is Iran, especially after U.S. President Donald Trump admitted that "the electoral loss was largely due to the war on Iran." Consequently, where will Trump's compass direct him? Toward resuming the war, or honoring public opinion that expressed its rejection through voting?
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Gordon Gray discusses potential impacts on hot issues in light of the recent election results, drawing from a precedent in 1973 when it was officially prohibited to use public and defense budget funds to finance any American combat activities in Vietnam. He sees a significant possibility that the same may occur regarding the war with Iran.
Gray explains to "An-Nahar" that the new Congress might cut military funding, despite Trump's unpredictable actions. At the same time, he notes that constitutionally, the U.S. president has powers enabling him to make military decisions and "no longer needs to worry about elections, as he will not run for presidency again."
Meanwhile, former adviser to four U.S. presidents from both Democratic and Republican parties Harley Lippman believes that midterm election outcomes will have ramifications on foreign policy, based on the premise that the United States has national interests that remain unchanged with political party shifts. He indicates, for example, regarding the impact on the Middle East, that Trump "still has the capability to launch a military strike without worrying about elections, as he still has two years to do as he wishes."
Kicking off scenarios for resuming the war on Iran in light of election results, Lippman offers "An-Nahar" a different perspective, stating that although the war is unpopular among Americans, some may see this precisely as the reason why Trump might "reconsider waging it."
Furthermore, the issue of "his personal legacy" as U.S. President comes into play, alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President J.D. Vance, who with Trump "must all consider how history will remember them," especially as they have publicly declared their adamant rejection of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon or closing the Strait of Hormuz. "If they fail to achieve this, such failure will be recorded in their political record, and the next president will bear its consequences."
Lippman offers another dimension reflecting the internal political struggle between the two parties, suggesting that should Trump and his administration refrain from launching a military strike on Iran, "it may be interpreted as adhering to the Democratic party’s policy, which itself is problematic for them."
He believes "the war on Iran is not necessarily unpopular because it is a war in itself, but because Trump has failed to articulate the reasons driving the United States to it, or to explain why Iran should not possess nuclear weapons." He did not present "a clear and comprehensive American strategy outlining reasons for the war or a vision of the future thereafter. This has angered Americans."
The Democratic ascent in Congress has repercussions for Israel, particularly following the U.S. President’s announcement on election morning to halt American aid to Tel Aviv, considering this file one the Democratic candidate in the state of Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed, utilized. This announcement was seized by the Israeli opposition, represented by the main contender for prime ministership, Gadi Eisenkot, to bolster his competitive position against the head of the Likud party, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Veteran diplomat Gray, who has intimate knowledge of the Middle East and its files from serving as U.S. ambassador and diplomat to several Arab countries, notes it is "difficult to predict Trump’s actions." He announced he would terminate the annual military aid package of 3.8 billion dollars, initially scheduled to continue until 2028.
Since Hamas's attacks in October 2023, additional aid totaling around 20 billion dollars was provided, "and it remains unclear what exactly Trump intends to reduce from this aid. This announcement came as a surprise to everyone, especially in Israel."
Ambassador Gray highlights that historically, military aid to Israel was provided by both Democratic and Republican administrations alike, "without notable discussion about it." However, he anticipates that with the new Congress taking office, "arms deals with Israel will be subject to greater scrutiny and review than ever before."
Lippmann with Gray on the likelihood of a review of arms deals with Israel, predicting "that the current Congress will be more critical of Israel and the Gulf countries."
Regarding the Arabian Gulf, the American foreign policy expert sees that these countries "now have to account for the post-Trump era, especially as his position has weakened politically," he considers, having been a factor of instability, as evidenced by his handling of Israel and Ukraine, and "much of these problems stem from their inconsistent and unreliable dealings."
He notes that under these conditions, "Gulf countries might benefit from a more transparent and stable Democratic administration in their dealings, even if it means losing the personal favor Trump has shown.”
On the other hand, he observes that Democrats are "less prone to war compared to Republicans," although they may resort to military force in certain situations.
Ambassador Gray on the diplomatic front suggests that matters in the Arabian Gulf will remain "at their current levels," especially as the United States launched the war without "coordination" with these nations or "listening to their concerns," resulting in "a breakdown of trust between the two sides."
Recalling Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi's visit to Washington, where he met with U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance on the eve of the war’s eruption and later appeared in a TV interview, noting such an "interview was rare for the Omani mediator," and it reflected an atmosphere far removed from war and escalation.
About Middle Eastern issues, direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel are noted by Gray briefly, suggesting that former President Joe Biden's administration tried to establish channels for relationships between the two sides, "thus Democrats will continue to support these negotiations. However, the Lebanese issue is not a priority for the United States, falling within the framework of the conflict with Iran."
Assessing the midterm election results and their implications for European allies, Ambassador Gordon Gray posits that the results "favored Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, to the detriment of Russian President Vladimir Putin."
France and European nations are working to reevaluate the nature of their alliance with the United States, and "the form of support they will continue to provide."
He concludes by wondering "what will the post-Trump era look like? Will his successor follow the same policies towards Europe, or will transatlantic relations take a different direction?"
Conversely, former adviser Harley Lippman argues that the most crucial factor regarding foreign policy "is the future shape of the Republican and Democratic parties, and who will lead them." For approaches to international issues, managing conflicts, and waging wars vary with the different currents within each party, whether they lean left, right, or center.
