From Abu Dhabi, the world watches what America’s midterms mean for everyone else
For millions of people who had no vote in the US midterm elections, the results may still shape their safety, their energy bills, and their access to the seas on which their livelihoods depend. That paradox was on vivid display in Abu Dhabi this week, where the vote was read less as a domestic political contest than as a referendum on President Donald Trump, with consequences that will extend across nearly every border.
A senior Emirati official said dryly that it was unfair that he and other US allies could not vote, given that the outcome will affect non-Americans almost everywhere. Gulf citizens were bracing for what they considered the possible resumption of attacks on Iran as the on-again, off-again war enters its ninth month, a resumption that would almost certainly bring renewed Iranian drone and missile attacks on Gulf targets.
Americans, for their part, were voting on their rising cost of living, their president’s performance in office, and their country’s uncertain direction. Much of the rest of the world was watching for clues about how the most powerful country will wield its power, support its allies, and counter its adversaries at a decisive and historic moment.
The questions abroad were sweeping. Will the United States sustain its international commitments, treaty and otherwise? How will Trump, focused on securing his legacy in his last two years in office, navigate wars in Europe and the Middle East, both of which are bleeding across borders? With artificial intelligence transforming economies and societies at unsettling speed, how will his administration regulate the most powerful AI companies and work with partners to manage the technology’s global impact? And beneath all of it: what happens if growing US domestic divisions distract Washington as international dangers proliferate?
Never in my lifetime have I encountered such intense international interest in non-presidential US elections. This past week, I found myself discussing the esoteric details of Senate races from Alaska to Michigan and from Maine to Texas with Emirati interlocutors. What struck me was their focus on growing regional and global volatility, genuine worries about the United States’ consistency of purpose, and rising concerns about the impact of AI advances, many of which are emerging from the United States.
What animates these discussions most is the nature of Trump’s singular presidency, driven by peripatetic and often unpredictable decision-making on matters ranging from imposing tariffs to threatening noncompliant allies, from removing Venezuela’s leader in a daring raid to launching a still-ongoing war on Iran that took out most of that country’s leadership and increased global energy prices. At a lively dinner this week with European energy business leaders, one participant said, to nods around the table: “It’s not surprising we take far more interest in these midterms than before because of the impact Trump has had on all of us, because we want to know how these elections will influence his behavior, and because we wonder most of all what comes next.”
The election’s message to the world proved greater than many polls had anticipated, with Democrats retaking both the House and the Senate by clear margins. That rebuke will check Trump in significant respects, particularly on domestic issues. But it could also drive him toward more assertive actions through executive orders, especially in international affairs, where he will continue to enjoy more freedom of action.
A Democratic House will bring greater scrutiny of Trump’s past and future actions, fiercer checks on his spending priorities, and sharper confrontations over his continued use of executive authority. With control of the Senate, Democrats can more effectively block his judicial and administration appointments. As Trump himself predicted ahead of the vote, he will become “Mr. Veto” to block legislation, since Democrats fell short of veto-proof majorities in both chambers.
Dangerously, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping might wager that the next two years offer no better time to seize regional opportunities with a president who has shown himself more willing to strike compromises with them than any recent predecessor or likely successor. Putin will further test Ukraine’s resilience through a difficult winter, and Xi may increase his military probes around Taiwan. In Putin’s case, Trump has recently eased energy sanctions; with Xi, he has delayed weapons deliveries to Taiwan.
Here in the Gulf, the consequences could be more immediate. Iranians will interpret the outcome as a vote against Trump’s war and may become even more reluctant to negotiate the future of their nuclear capabilities. Iran has responded cautiously but positively to a letter from US Vice President JD Vance proposing renewed negotiations, delivered through Qatari intermediaries to Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. Iranian officials have called the outreach a constructive step, and consultations have continued in Doha, but an imminent agreement remains remote.
Alex Plitsas, who spent much of his career at the Pentagon focused on the Middle East and is now with the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, says US officials increasingly recognize divisions within Iran’s leadership between those pursuing a diplomatic settlement and hardliners in the security establishment resistant to concessions. Those divisions, compounded by disagreements over sanctions relief, Iran’s nuclear program, and freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, make a near-term breakthrough difficult. Tehran may keep talking, but there is little evidence its leadership has reached consensus on the concessions a deal would require.
If hostilities erupt again, Plitsas argues, Iran will likely continue a four-part asymmetric strategy designed to offset its conventional disadvantage. It will try to increase US casualties to raise the domestic political costs of military operations; renew strikes on its Gulf neighbors to pressure Trump to end the conflict; continue information operations in the United States, which Tehran increased before the midterms to divide Trump’s political base; and step up attacks on shipping to drive up the costs of energy and consumer products. The Iranian security establishment is likely to conclude that time is working in its favor.
Barring an unexpected Iranian acceptance of a settlement, the most likely scenario is a sustained series of US strikes designed to degrade Iran’s residual military capabilities and energy infrastructure. At a campaign rally in Iowa on Sunday, Trump said he had held back recently to avoid casualties, adding: “But at some point we’re going to have to give them the hammer.” A larger attack might aim to destroy enough of Iran’s missile and drone infrastructure to argue credibly that Tehran no longer poses an existential threat to Israel or an unacceptable threat to US forces. The administration is likely looking to strike Pickaxe Mountain, sealing off the entrances to the underground nuclear facility rather than destroying it, then watching the site with satellites and striking again if Iran tries to regain access.
Trump could then tell European, Gulf, and Asian governments, whose economies depend on energy and commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, that securing the waterway now rests primarily with them. Gulf officials worry that would amount to de facto abandonment of the region, which they say is not sufficiently unified or capable of holding Iran in check. Iran may respond with attacks on US bases and Gulf oil and gas facilities, prompting a retaliatory cycle.
“For the UAE, we are bracing for the worst, but we are counting on a breakthrough,” the senior Emirati official told me. “What we want is continued economic pressure to bring about a political outcome and not to go to war.” He believes six to eight more months of pressure will let mediators work and prompt reluctant Iranian interlocutors to compromise over time, particularly on the nuclear program. “That will require stamina,” he said, which Trump might feel more ready for once the midterms no longer loom over him.
But on that decision, of course, Trump gets the final vote.