An examination of America's changing political landscape, the influence of corporate interests and the Israel lobby, the dangers of another confrontation with Iran, the future of Gulf monarchies, and Washington's increasingly complicated relationships with South Asia, China, and Ukraine.

An Election With Global Consequences

The midterms in November of 2026 have shown many issues in our democratic society. Financial concerns, partisanship, corporations taking over our politics, immigration issues, and President Donald Trump have all played a role in our country becoming more divided.

The consequences extend beyond Washington. America's relationship with Israel, the possibility of renewed confrontation with Iran, the security of Gulf monarchies, China's expanding influence, and the war in Ukraine are all connected to the direction of American domestic politics.

Trumpism will not go away because of electoral defeats. Trumpism was born out of legitimate frustration over our industrial base falling apart, wealth only benefiting those who already had it, politicians no longer working for us, and an aversion to our elite class.

Can Democrats use these electoral wins to change policy? They still have the backing of corporate money, Wall Street, military companies, and old-school foreign policy hawks. With the rise of progressive politicians, people are beginning to ask if simply taking over Congress will solve our problems.

Economic Anxiety and the Limits of Trumpism

Midterms usually turn into votes against the President's decisions. Whether Americans will continue to feel this way about the 2026 election remains unclear. High prices from inflation, tariffs, and everyday expenses will continue to be discussed, along with Trump bashing other politicians.

Tariffs may help some US-made products. They raise prices for imported goods and can prompt other countries to retaliate against US exports. Americans want to know when housing prices will go down, medical costs will stabilize, and jobs will become more secure. People are tired of their dollars losing value.

Many have come to realize corporations are making more money than Americans at home. This leads more people to want higher wages and cheaper health insurance. More regulation on big business and big spenders.

There will always be people who want what Trump is doing for the United States. They believe in nationalism and don't want us to be open to the rest of the world. Will Trump's replacement be able to keep those people happy?

The Democrats will have to face the same issues. When you're elected, you expect things to change. But how can that happen if half your party wants change and half want to stay close to their donors?

Congressional Leadership: Schumer, Jeffries, and the Establishment Dilemma

Senator Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries represent different aspects of Democrats trying to remain steady while also allowing change.

Schumer has ties to New York's finance community, and Jeffries has ties to major Democratic contributors who support Israel. Have led many progressives to question these leaders.

These ties do not mean they are corrupt. But they do lead to further discussion about campaign donations.

Progressives have also been unhappy with how our current President has been dealt with by the Democrats. They would like to see impeachment or further investigation into his actions. While the Democratic leadership has tried to focus on laws and Congress.

Congress can impeach our President. It will take 2/3rds of the Senate to convict him. So, Congress may have other options to hold our President accountable.

As Ralph Nader has always said, corporations have too much power over our government. By switching back and forth between the same two parties, we will never gain control back as a people.

With the new Congress, we should expect them to look into our current President's actions. Military spending and campaign donations.  As well as our involvement around the world. Will these new Democrats step up to the challenge? Only time will tell if they become a force that rules with us.

AIPAC, Campaign Financing, and Israel's Political Influence

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, occupies an influential position in Washington's foreign-policy establishment.

Its political strength comes from organized lobbying, relationships with lawmakers, electoral spending through affiliated political organizations, and sustained advocacy for the American-Israeli strategic partnership.

There are many groups that help support the U.S. relationship with Israel. Evangelical Christians, military companies, and key decision-makers and voters also play a role.

With the recent genocide in Gaza, settler violence and occupation of the West Bank, incursions, military operations, and occupying lands in the surrounding countries, we have seen increased criticism of our aid to Israel and how much the Israeli government plays a role in our decisions. Israel wants to be the military might in West Asia; of course, with our help.

Americans who are younger, activists, and politicians who oppose our unlimited aid to Israel are beginning to push back against traditional beliefs. Like Abdal El-Sayed's run for office, others are trying to connect opposing foreign wars with improving conditions in our own country.

This doesn't mean that Israel will lose its influence on American politics, but these topics have started to gain attention in elections.

In 1996, a policy called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" was created for Benjamin Netanyahu by the neocons, who are mostly Americans. There have been arguments made that some of the policies outlined in this document have already been followed in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and now in Israel's dealings with Iran and other countries. In all these instances, they needed help from the United States, which is complicit with Israel.

There is nothing wrong with criticizing AIPAC or the Israeli government or the aid we provide them. As long as you are not singling out Jews as Americans who think the same as them.

The question that needs to be asked is if our foreign policies are made by us or those who put money into certain politicians.

The Franklin-AIPAC Intelligence Case

Historical concerns about classified information surfaced in the investigation involving Pentagon analyst Lawrence Franklin and former AIPAC officials Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman.

Franklin pleaded guilty to unauthorized disclosures of national defense information. Rosen and Weissman faced criminal charges, but prosecutors dismissed the case against them in 2009.

The dismissal is important: neither former AIPAC official was convicted in that prosecution.

Nevertheless, the investigation exposed vulnerabilities involving classified information and unauthorized disclosure.

Its broader significance lies in the need for strict safeguards governing intelligence cooperation, regardless of the foreign government involved.

Jonathan Pollard: An American Who Spied For Israel And Is Considered A Hero By Israelis

Jonathan Jay Pollard was an American Intelligence officer who spied for Israel. In November 1985, he was caught passing top-secret intelligence information to Israel. Pollard pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit espionage and was given a life sentence in 1987. He gave Israel intelligence on countries in the Middle East. This included military strength, Soviet weapons, and other secrets pertaining to the United States. Although Israel is an ally of the United States, it was still considered espionage. At first, Israel denied any knowledge of the spying but later stated that Pollard was working for them. Israel granted him citizenship in 1995. 

Pollard spent around 30 years in a United States prison. He was paroled out in November of 2015. In November 2020, his parole restrictions ended, and he moved to Israel in December. When he and his wife landed at Ben Gurion Airport, Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, met them. Netanyahu gave him Israeli identification and welcomed him home. While Americans may see him as a spy, many Israelis see him as a hero.

In July of 2025, another scandal broke when US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee invited Pollard to the US Embassy in Jerusalem. No one seemed to know this would happen, including high-ranking White House officials. The head of the CIA in Israel was also shocked to hear about this meeting. It was confirmed that the white house was not told about this meeting. Pollard stated that he just wanted to meet with him to show his appreciation for helping get him out of jail. Huckabee confirmed that they met, but nothing was asked of him or given to him. Many people have questioned why this happened and if it was really okay for the United States ambassador to meet with a man who spied for Israel.

Israel's Access to American Defense Intelligence

The Senate Intelligence Committee's May 2026 version of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027 included provisions intended to strengthen intelligence cooperation with Israel.

The proposed framework addressed cybersecurity, terrorism, missile threats, unmanned aircraft, sanctions evasion, and adversarial military technologies.

Of particular importance were provisions on when intelligence sharing could be restricted or suspended.

If passed in a similar form, it could create these relationships.

This could improve missile-defense relations and strengthen threat detection in the region. However, it could also expose U.S. sources or draw the United States into a conflict started by another country.

Congress must ensure that intelligence sharing remains consistent with American law and independent national-security priorities.

Will Trump Strike Iran Again?

The possibility of renewed American military action against Iran represents one of the most dangerous uncertainties following the midterms.

Prime Minister of Israel Benyamin Netanyahu has always believed that Iran poses a great danger to his country. Whether it be its nuclear efforts, missiles, or alliance with other states. He has asked America for more action many times.

However, the US must consider many factors when it comes to Iran. Military outposts and navy ships can come under attack from Iran. Many countries would be affected if America went to war with Iran. Oil prices would skyrocket, which could cripple our global economy.

Because Trump is in such a weak political position, he may want to do something drastic. But if the US goes to war, it could cost him popularity and cause the American economy to fail.

There are many different opinions on what to do. More talks with Iran, increase sanctions, or even go to war.

We would see Iran start attacking Americans and/or our allies. If the President were to announce any type of operation against Iran, we would know it's close. When diplomacy fails. 

Israel could continue to attack more Iranian facilities. They may call upon the US for help or information. If the US stepped in, it would be a much bigger issue than it is now.

Speculation has risen on the potential need to use a tactical nuke to obliterate Iran's nuclear facilities deep under the ground. With sites such as Fordow and Pik Axe Mountain so well fortified, this has become a more prominent topic recently. Questions remain about whether conventional bunker busters can reach these sites. We don't know for sure if Washington will allow a nuclear strike. Many believe President Donald Trump would rather use conventional force.

The use of nuclear weapons would be unprecedented since 1945. It would affect people and the environment, and it would also anger many countries. It could spark war throughout the Persian Gulf. Disrupt oil prices and maybe cause other countries to obtain nuclear weapons to protect themselves. So, while we have seen more hostile words from each side and the fact that we can use nuclear weapons. It is still less likely to happen than using conventional forces. But we never know what could happen in today's Middle East.

The US Congress can stop a President from going to war. But it may not be able to stop a quick strike against another country.

If the US goes to war with Iran once again, we need to have goals and an end result in mind.

Nuclear issues

An idea that has been brought up is to allow multiple nations, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, maybe others from the Middle East, to work together on uranium enrichment. There have been reports that Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE could all be under the supervision of each other for uranium enrichment for peaceful nuclear power. Other countries such as Turkey and Egypt have gotten involved but were not mentioned as part of the consortium. Reaching a mutual understanding could help reduce tensions between these countries. Many hurdles remain. These include past rivalries, trust issues, and tensions with other nations. Disputes over enrichment rights.  Israel and what they think will happen if other countries have access to nuclear power. Nuclear power can lead to nuclear weapons at some point. After the US recently reached a civil nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia, this topic has been brought to light even more.

As talks go on about creating a nuclear agreement between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other surrounding countries. The question has been avoided as to why Israel is exempt from having their large nuclear arsenal inspected. SIPRI claims Israel has around 90 nuclear warheads. They refuse to come under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and keep their program a secret. Israel feels they need to have nuclear weapons to survive in their hostile environment. But this shouldn't place them above other countries who could potentially have nuclear weapons as well. As you can see, Iran has had many countries come after them to inspect their nuclear programs. Even going as far as trying to bomb their facilities. We have no way of knowing if Israel even has nuclear weapons. Both situations should be treated the same. We should allow all these surrounding countries to join in a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. This would include Israel as well.  All with proper ways to ensure the countries don't create nuclear weapons and be given assurance that they will not be attacked if they comply. The goal shouldn't be to allow more countries to obtain nuclear weapons. It should be to decrease the threat of what we already have.

The Gulf Monarchies: Survival or Strategic Decline?

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman face growing uncertainty over regional security and the reliability of American protection.

Their prosperity depends on energy revenues, international investment, political stability, and secure maritime trade.

However, they are unlikely to fail anytime soon. Many have significant wealth, advanced infrastructure, and strong institutions.

They could be vulnerable because of regional instability. If Iran strikes back or if war breaks out, many key assets can be targeted. These include oil facilities, water facilities, airports and harbors, and financial districts.

Many of these countries have tried to grow their economies outside of oil. Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E and Qatar are some good examples of this.

They are doing this by allowing more room for flexibility through the United States, building relations with China, and communicating with Iran.

The survival of Gulf monarchies will depend less on unquestioning alignment with Washington than on their ability to avoid becoming front-line participants in an Israeli-Iranian confrontation.

The UAE and the Abraham Accords

Under President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the UAE has pursued economic diversification, technological modernization, and relationships with competing global powers.

The Abraham Accords of September 2020 established diplomatic normalization between the UAE and Israel, creating opportunities for trade, technology, investment, and security cooperation.

However, the Gaza conflict and subsequent regional tensions have complicated those expectations.

Abu Dhabi must balance relations with Israel against its economic connections with Iran, its standing in the Arab world, and regional concerns over Palestinian rights.

The Abraham Accords are unlikely to disappear merely because American congressional leadership changes. Their commercial and institutional relationships have developed considerable momentum.

Yet normalization cannot indefinitely remain insulated from the Palestinian question. An arrangement perceived as disregarding Palestinian self-determination risks losing broader regional legitimacy.

The UAE's greatest strategic advantage is its ability to communicate with Washington, Beijing, Tehran, and other international actors. Its greatest danger would be becoming dependent on a security structure that draws it into conflicts beyond its control.

Matthew Cole is a reporter who recently wrote a book called Princes and Thieves: Jared Kushner and Mohamed bin Zayed's Secret Plot to Remake the Middle East. It goes into detail about Jared Kushner and how he helped 2 dictators from the Middle East take over our foreign policy. These individuals were Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia (MBS) and Mohamed bin Zayed (MBZ) of the UAE.

Not only did they work together, but they helped shape American foreign policy to benefit their country. They may have even done so without telling our government. If these claims are true, we should ask many questions about how the United States is being run.

One of the more shocking revelations Cole brings to light is the alleged secret money. That may have been funneled into accounts that Kushner had access to.

These secret accounts, supposedly known as alpha and beta, would allow money to flow to covert political, intelligence, and strategic interests.

India-US Relations: Strategic Partnership Amid Political Friction

India has been an important ally to the US. They share many areas of interest. These include defense, technology investment, and maritime cooperation.  Both also want to counter China's rise in the Indo-Pacific.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has befriended both Republican and Democratic leaders. Knowing that power changes hands every few years in the US.

Tariffs placed by Trump, as well as his relationship with Pakistan, can be difficult for India to work with.

India will continue to practice its policy of strategic autonomy. It will stay close to countries such as Russia and BRICS. India does not want to join military coalitions with any country.

There could be some tension between India and a democracy-led Congress. If they start to focus on religion in India and how it affects the people and their democracy.

India will still have a good relationship with the US. America wants them in its Indo-Pacific balance. India also wants more technology and investment from the US.

America and South Asia: Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Regional Realignment

The United States' relationship with the region should not be defined only by its ties to India.

Pakistan still matters due to its nuclear weapons, its proximity to other countries, and its ties to China.

It's important that the US continue to have good relations with Pakistan while not hurting our relationship with India too much. Since Pakistan relies on foreign aid to keep its economy running they will always be susceptible to these types of relationships.

Bangladesh occupies an equally important geographic position near the Bay of Bengal and major Indian Ocean shipping routes.

Its garment industry, maritime commerce, energy requirements, infrastructure development, and climate vulnerability create opportunities for economic and strategic cooperation.

The US needs to understand that Bangladesh is its own country. It should not be seen only as India's or China's problem.

The focus should be on democracy, institutions, working conditions, and the political climate.

Sri Lanka, Nepal, and the Maldives similarly show smaller South Asian countries' growing preference for diversified international relationships.

A successful American regional strategy should emphasize trade, infrastructure, maritime cooperation, and diplomatic respect rather than reducing South Asia to an arena of great-power competition.

America and China: Competition Without Catastrophe

China poses the biggest long-term threat to US hegemony.

It has an advanced manufacturing sector, growing military capabilities, and is forming economic partnerships throughout the Third World.

Raising tariffs on Chinese products, banning the sale of certain semiconductors to China, and other trade restrictions have only increased this rivalry.

The biggest threat would be if China decided to attack Taiwan. This could halt chip production, block off shipping lanes, and disrupt the economy.

A Democratic Congress is unlikely to abandon strategic competition with Beijing, which enjoys considerable bipartisan support.

However, responsible leadership requires distinguishing necessary deterrence from economically damaging confrontation.

China cannot realistically be isolated from the global economy without substantial consequences for American businesses and consumers.

A sustainable relationship must combine military preparedness with diplomatic communication, economic competition, and selective cooperation on global challenges.

Ukraine and the Credibility of American Commitments

It was unacceptable for Russia to invade Ukraine. It goes against everything we believe in about borders and protecting our country as well as Europe.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine, we have given them money and weapons to help defend themselves. But I think we need to answer many questions about how far we want to go and how much we want to spend on this. And whether a settlement is possible.

Trump's approach has raised concerns among European governments about the reliability of American commitments.

Democratic congressional control could strengthen support for Ukraine, although continued assistance does not automatically produce a viable political settlement.

Ukraine will have to address major issues related to population, the economy, and infrastructure. While Russia will have suffered many losses as well, it may feel that continuing to fight will benefit it.

We need to start taking care of ourselves in Europe.

If we don't provide Ukraine with some type of guarantee, there will most likely be more conflict. But continuing to fight a war we can't win politically will only lead to Ukraine's loss.

How do we help Ukraine become free and protect Europe?

The Military-Industrial Complex and America's Economic Future

Underlying America's international commitments is a fundamental debate about military expenditure.

The United States maintains an extensive network of overseas bases, naval deployments, intelligence organizations, and defense-industrial capabilities.

These institutions provide substantial security advantages but impose enormous financial obligations.

While these jobs support our nation and help us develop new technology, they can become an issue when we reevaluate how much we should spend on the military.

Are we meeting our nation's needs, or are we simply spending money on practices that have continued since the United States became a superpower?

At some point, we need to focus on what our country needs and better our economy. Our health care, schools, and economy. 

So when Congress looks at our military spending, they should ask whether it's actually helping our country stay safe and whether we can keep spending this money for years to come.

Conclusion: America's Choice Between Renewal and Strategic Overreach

Will America Redeem Itself or Continue Down the Path of Imperialism?

Democrats took back both houses of Congress in the 2026 midterms. When the new Congress is seated in January 2027, it will check the Trump Administration.

However, winning elections does not fix America's problems.

Trumpism will continue to be present. Corporations will continue to fund elections.  Members of Congress will have to figure out how to work with each other while demanding change. The relationship with Israel will come under fire, and with America clashing with Iran once again, it could lead to more conflict in the region.

Gulf states will have money to help them transition, but they still face the risk of war. India will continue to distance itself, and smaller South Asian nations will try to gain more power. We need to face reality about our economy and military capabilities toward China, and how we handle Ukraine.

Can America learn what its true interests are instead of following after political ideals and old ways of doing things? As well as what corporations want. 

Having a big military will not replace a strong economy, reputation, or democracy.

The next two years will test whether Congress can restore meaningful checks on executive authority while addressing ordinary Americans' economic concerns.

American renewal will depend less on defeating one political personality than on restoring effective institutions, responsible foreign policy, and a governing philosophy that places public welfare above narrow political and financial interests.

The midterms have opened that possibility. Whether America's political leadership can seize it remains uncertain.