The Gulf and... The Blue Wave!

The Democratic Party’s victory in the U.S. congressional elections was highly anticipated. As we wrote in our article and tweets, this outcome is fundamentally part of the political balancing process, which typically favors the opposition party in the midterm elections following a president’s election. A clear example is President Reagan and his Republican Party, which won the 1984 elections with staggering numbers that are difficult, if not impossible, to replicate. They secured the support of 49 out of 50 states and won 525 electoral votes out of a total of 538. Nevertheless, when the 1986 midterm congressional elections took place, the seats flipped: the Democratic Party won 55 seats in the Senate, leaving 45 for the Republicans, reversing the previous situation. The same occurred in the House of Representatives, where Democrats won 258 seats compared to 177 for the Republicans. Thus, President Trump and his team were aware early on, backed by historical data and ongoing polls, that these elections were hopeless. Moreover, these results were not necessarily going to influence his decisions, contrary to what our so-called “genius” experts on U.S. affairs claimed.

What made matters worse, and underscored the Democratic sweep, were the suffocating cost-of-living issues stemming from sharp increases in energy prices (which harmed American voters while benefiting major energy companies). Consequently, consumer goods prices also rose due to higher tariffs on imported products. Additionally, provocative speeches and decisions mobilized minorities of African, Latin American, and Muslim descent, as well as left-wing and liberal white Americans, to turn out and vote for the Democratic Party. Although they did not secure the two-thirds majority in the Senate required to impeach the president or override any veto he might impose on congressional decisions, their gains still limited his legislative maneuvering room.

Final points:

1. Another aspect we mentioned alongside the expectation of a Democratic victory is that this win will not necessarily affect the president’s decisions on war and peace concerning the Gulf region and the Middle East. President Trump does not hope for a third presidential term, and his military decisions are driven by his personal judgment. Within the broad powers of the presidency and through semantic manipulation, what he does constitutes military action under his authority rather than a formal declaration of war, which would require congressional approval.

2. His future decisions will be free even from the influence of Republican politicians and intellectuals, to whom he does not truly belong, nor from the MAGA movement’s leaders and youth. That movement may fade away with the end of his presidency, much like the Tea Party movement, a right-wing extremist group that contributed to the 2010 congressional election sweep but eventually disappeared. In the coming period, those who will influence the president’s military decisions and war-and-peace matters will be major stakeholders and wealthy interests, particularly those overseeing the military-industrial complex, energy, technology, artificial intelligence, banking, and insurance sectors. All of them benefit from escalation, confrontation, strikes, and counterstrikes, and they will wield the loudest voice and greatest influence in the near future. They will not be deterred by the five or six congressional seats won by either party.

The important question remains: What can we do in the coming period? The answer will be in a forthcoming realistic article.

3. I would like to know how U.S. election results can positively impact the two million displaced Palestinians from Gaza, who have been forced to leave their homes for tents, facing harsh winters and approaching rains. The same applies to hundreds of thousands who have been killed or injured, while one doctor, writing from his warm, safe office, boasts proudly...

The flood, that is, the flood of devastation and destruction, continues! I am amazed.