Contrary to the celebratory reaction with which a considerable segment of Arab public opinion greeted the results of the US midterm elections, a political reading requires some patience. The Republicans’ loss of their majority does not mean that the United States has abandoned its interests, nor that the American voter went to the ballot box to settle Middle Eastern disputes.
What happened deserves analysis, but projecting our own wishes onto it repeats an old mistake: interpreting US politics according to what we hope for, then expressing surprise when events unfold according to domestic calculations and economic interests.
I would like to focus on six points to offer some explanation:
First, it is customary for the president’s party to lose seats in midterm elections, especially in the House of Representatives. Voters use these elections to hold the administration accountable, and the opposition’s supporters are usually more motivated than the governing party’s base. However, this should not diminish the significance of the current Democratic gains.
The shift is substantial and reflects dissatisfaction with the administration’s performance. The result should be viewed in context, without declaring the end of the Republican Party or treating every electoral setback as a permanent reversal in the direction of American society.
Second, the economy and the cost of living were at the heart of the contest. The administration bears responsibility for its trade and economic policies, as well as for assessing the consequences of the conflicts it has engaged in. Likewise, the personalization of politics practiced by President Trump should not be exempt from criticism, just as rising prices cannot be separated from disruptions in energy supplies.
The war in Ukraine and interference with navigation through the Strait of Hormuz increase the costs of oil, transportation, and insurance, with the bill ultimately passed on to the American consumer, even though the United States is a major energy producer. Markets are global, and supply disruptions affect prices far beyond the war zone.
These costs are compounded by Houthi threats to shipping in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and attacks on Saudi oil facilities. Here, the Iranian issue emerges as a matter that goes beyond the dispute between Washington and Tehran.
Using maritime passages and the security of neighboring states as tools of pressure makes the international economy hostage to conflict. Therefore, this issue will not disappear with a change in the congressional majority, nor will Democrats be able to ignore it after making Americans’ living standards the basis for criticizing their opponents. Yet the persistence of the challenge does not necessarily mean agreement with the president’s military approach, even if he enjoys broad authority in this area.
This also requires distinguishing between opposition to war and tolerance of Tehran’s behavior. An American politician may oppose the conduct of military operations because he considers them ineffective, while at the same time supporting measures to prevent Iran from threatening its neighbors. Reducing these positions to simple notions of friendship or hostility obscures the real alternatives and weakens our ability to see the situation clearly.
Most likely, the debate will revolve around methods of addressing the problem: negotiations backed by guarantees, sanctions, or military deterrence to protect navigation. Accepting threats to energy supplies as a normal situation serves neither American nor international interests. It is in the Gulf states’ interest to advocate a lasting solution that prevents recurring coercion and preserves national sovereignty. A prolonged war may worsen the very economic problems it is intended to solve and provide hardliners with new reasons to persist.
Third, the election of Abdulrahman El-Sayed to the Senate deserves recognition as evidence of American society’s ability to integrate citizens from diverse backgrounds. However, Arab celebrations become exaggerated if they assume that he entered the Senate as a representative of Arabs or Muslims outside the United States. He is an American politician, accountable to his voters for healthcare, employment, education, taxes, and other domestic concerns.
He follows a long line of Black, Arab American, and Latino figures who have reached positions of influence. America is a nation built by successive waves of immigration, a “people of peoples.” His election is part of that evolution, not a commitment to champion our causes.
Fourth, policies restricting immigration do not eliminate the United States’ need for immigrants, from scientists and skilled professionals to workers in production and service sectors. Such policies are ultimately unsustainable. The American economy depends on immigrants, and the contradiction between closing the door rhetorically and meeting economic needs has concerned a segment of the American public.
Likewise, the declining share of non-Hispanic whites does not mean an inevitable racial conflict, nor does it guarantee a future Democratic majority. Ethnic origin alone does not determine voting behavior, and immigrants themselves may support conservative policies.
Fifth, there are broad American interests that transcend party divisions, such as national security, economic strength, and the protection of trade. The Constitution organizes governmental powers but does not provide a fixed interpretation of those interests or the means of achieving them.
As a result, policies change and administrations differ, while institutions and laws impose limits on decision-making. Arab observers need to understand both the areas of continuity and those of change. It is a mistake to expect a complete reversal in foreign policy, just as it is a mistake to assume that election results will have no impact on funding, oversight, or the president’s freedom of action.
Sixth, losing seats does not mean the disappearance of the Republican base. Assessing its resilience requires examining voting percentages, turnout levels, and district-by-district differences once counting is complete, rather than relying solely on seat totals.
Republicans could regain both the presidency and congressional majorities within two years if Democrats fail to convert their victory and promises into tangible results. This is a political possibility, not a prediction. The voter who punishes those in power today can punish those who promised reform tomorrow, especially if living costs remain high and poor decisions continue to drain resources.
The lesson for us is to build our positions on an understanding of institutions and the balance of interests, and to strengthen our ability to engage with both parties. Celebrating the victory of one side is no substitute for working with the American state itself.
Final thought: The interests of nations do not change simply because a congressional majority changes.
