Washington After the Midterm Elections... The Balance of Power Shifts, But Interests Remain

With every new U.S. president, attention turns to his statements, personality, and campaign promises, as if U.S. foreign policy starts anew upon his entry into the White House. However, understanding American policy requires looking beyond the president to the institutions involved in decision-making, the interests that persist beyond his term, and the domestic balances that sometimes expand and sometimes constrain his options.

The U.S. president possesses broad powers, including veto authority, and influences priority-setting, the selection of officials, crisis management, and negotiations. Yet Congress holds legislative, funding, and oversight tools, while the Departments of State and Defense, along with intelligence agencies, contribute assessments, shape options, and implement decisions. U.S. foreign policy emerges from the interaction of these entities, although the weight of each varies depending on the issue and circumstances.

By virtue of its military responsibilities, the Pentagon exerts significant influence in assessing war risks, deterrence requirements, and the protection of U.S. deployments abroad. However, this influence does not mean it makes decisions unilaterally. Nor does presidential power imply the ability to bypass all constraints. Decisions pass through political, military, and economic calculations and may face resistance from within the administration itself, from Congress, or from public opinion.

From this perspective, one can understand the continuity of certain U.S. trends despite the succession of presidents and their differing party affiliations. Support for Israel has persisted across multiple administrations, and competition with China has become a broad consensus transcending partisan divides. Nevertheless, the continuity of general direction does not imply identical policies; the scope of support, methods of pressure, negotiation conditions, and willingness to bear costs vary.

Conversely, claiming that all presidents follow the same policy also oversimplifies reality. Choices regarding war versus negotiation, expanding versus easing sanctions, and dealing with allies through confidence or pressure have tangible effects on countries and peoples. Therefore, careful analysis distinguishes between enduring interests and the tools used to achieve them, and between what a president can change and what is difficult to alter.

Problems arise when political commentary transforms into definitive predictions based on passing remarks or personal impressions. An escalated tone of threats is insufficient on its own to assert that war is imminent, just as calls for dialogue do not guarantee an agreement. Responsible analysis links rhetoric to decisions, funding, and diplomatic and military moves, explaining possibilities and their limits rather than presenting wishes as facts. Specialized expertise is essential to understand these nuances, but the value of analysis is not determined solely by the analyst’s age or nationality. The criterion is their knowledge of the U.S. political system, ability to verify information, distinction between news and opinion, expectation and prediction, and readiness to revise assessments when circumstances change.

For Kuwait and Gulf countries, this perspective supports building sustained relationships with various U.S. institutions alongside engagement with the current administration. It also reinforces the importance of a coordinated Gulf position and diversifying partnerships, ensuring that the protection of Gulf interests relies on long-term institutional work and a realistic understanding of shifts in international policy.

Presidential elections are held every four years to choose the president, while midterm elections take place halfway through his term to renew the House of Representatives and approximately one-third of the Senate. The president remains in office after the midterms until the end of the presidential term. The balance of power in Congress may shift, either supporting or constraining the president’s policies. This underscores that foreign policy is shaped by institutions that transcend the individual president. Faces in Washington change, along with priorities and approaches, but national interests and institutions lend a degree of continuity to policy. Therefore, the deeper question after every U.S. election is: What can the president change, and what will remain, given that state calculations drive its continuity?