Midterm Election; Flipping Obama

After the midterm elections and the Democrats’ widespread defeat, the results have been analyzed in many ways. Dr.Seyyed Mohammad Kazem Sajjadpour, professor and an expert in the U.S. affairs, has studied the impacts of the recent election for the readers of Iranian Diplomacy.

Commentary by Dr. Seyyed Mohammad Kazem Sajjadpour, professor and U.S. affairs expert for the Iranian Diplomacy

The U.S. midterm elections may be studied from three aspects. The first is its effect within the U.S. and the change in the configuration of the political forces. The second is the election effect on the general direction of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, and the third may be the effect of this election on foreign policy approaches to the Middle East.

Regarding the first aspect — the impact of the midterm elections on the U.S domestically — it should be stated that this election was very important, having rearranged the political forces in an unprecedented way. This change was so substantial that some analysts believe that we have not seen such modification in any U.S. midterm elections since the Truman era of the 1940s. In this election, about 60 seats shifted in the House of the Representatives. This shift in the makeup of the House of the Representatives is a major defeat for the Democrats. As to the makeup of the Senate: Despite retaining the majority, the Democrats lost a number of seats. There were changes among the state governorships as well, as the number of Republican governors increased by seven. These, in all, were a great blow to the policies of Mr. Obama’s administration and the Democrats, particularly in the domestic political scene. According to the polls, the main problems for the American people are not those of foreign affairs but the day-to-day problems of American economic and social life; in this election, the people paid but the slightest attention to international problems like Afghanistan and counterterrorism.

As to the second aspect: In spite of the fact that foreign policy was not a significant issue electorally, the election results might have considerable foreign policy consequences. The first feature of the impact could be this: In as much as Obama lacks domestic policy achievements, he will endeavor to compensate for this failure with success in foreign policy. In the U.S., there is precedent for this. In 1994 when Clinton was defeated in the midterm election, he immediately took a trip to Indonesia. Incidentally, during his 10-day trip to Asia, Mr. Obama will travel to Indonesia too. In general, Obama might try to accomplish something in foreign politics in order to be able to make up for his failure in domestic politics.

With the Republicans now in control of the House of Representatives, one can expect them to be more aggressive in promoting their particular foreign policy prescriptions. On the topic of foreign affairs, particularly in regard to current problems, the Republicans harbor characteristic views. First, they oppose a deadline for military withdrawal from Afghanistan. Second, they put more faith in the efficacy of military deployment in the conduct of foreign policy. Third, they are intolerant of both cooperation with international organizations such as the U.N. and multilateralism generally. Fourth, concerning China, they believe in putting more pressure on this country, and fifth, concerning the Israeli regime, they are opposed to putting significant amounts of pressure on the Zionist regime.

Expect Congress to concentrate mostly on the topics mentioned above. In any case, the president will almost surely have to modify in content his current approach to foreign policy, as the Republicans are now well-positioned to make their particular foreign policy views felt.

Regarding the third aspect, concerning the U.S policy toward the Middle East and Iran, it is still too soon to talk about how much of a shift the election will cause in the Iranian and the Middle East policies of the U.S. Apparently, Obama’s current policies will go on. The security-oriented approach, on which all of the American foreign policy elites, whether Republican or Democrat, are agreed, will continue. Nevertheless, there are signs that changes might occur. Pressure by the pro-Israeli wing in Congress — now more prominent thanks to Republican majority control — might render the administration stances harder. On the other hand, it is possible that, considering all his restraints, Obama will look on Iran as a special subject. However, it is unlikely a significant and extraordinary change will happen within the current framework — at least in the short term.

In the context of the U.S. midterm election results, Netanyahu’s recent trip to Washington is noteworthy. About Netanyahu’s recent trip to the U.S., it must be pointed out that the Israeli prime ministers regularly travel to the U.S. This is Netanyahu’s sixth trip to the U.S. during Obama’s presidency, and each trip has had its own theme, content and tune. The first meeting of Netanyahu with Obama, in March 2009, was very usual; next year the reception was rather cold; in their last meeting, because of domestic concerns and the midterm elections getting near, Obama changed his attitude and tried to provide a warm reception to Netanyahu. Nevertheless, Zionist regime officials agree that the election has placed them in a better position in American affairs, and indeed, look on the election as being something that they themselves have won! Thus, this trip by Netanyahu is different from the previous ones. The U.S-Israel relations contain an element of strategic stability along with minor and delicate differences. It seems that the result of the elections will lead the Obama administration to put less pressure on Israel in respect to the issue of peace negotiations.