In an in-depth geopolitical evaluation broadcast, Turkish academic and international relations specialist Professor Dr Bar\u0131\u015f Doster, a faculty member at Marmara University, joined Harici YouTube channel to analyze the domestic dynamics and sweeping foreign policy consequences of the US congressional midterm elections.<\/p>\n
The comprehensive discussion examined the prospect of a fractured mandate for the administration of US President Donald Trump, assessing the direct ramifications for Washington’s strategic posture across the Middle East, the grinding war in Ukraine, and great-power competition with Beijing and Moscow ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders’ Summit in Shenzhen.<\/p>\n
Setting the framework of the broadcast, journalist Elif \u0130lhamo\u011flu Akko\u00e7 noted that voters across the US were heading to the ballot box for the pivotal midterms to determine the composition of the entire 435-seat House of Representatives and 35 seats of the 100-seat Senate. She observed that nationwide survey averages pointed to prospective Democratic leads in both chambers, even as battleground states such as Michigan, Texas, Kansas, Alaska, and Ohio remained decisive in establishing the legislative arithmetic that will govern the remaining two years of Trump’s presidential term.<\/p>\n
“A Trump who has fallen into the minority in both wings of Congress”<\/strong><\/p>\n Addressing the electoral dynamics, Doster pointed out that the volume of early and advance voting across the US had surpassed previous cycles, signaling an elevated level of voter turnout. Doster highlighted that polling and public opinion research organizations indicated a very high likelihood of a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, alongside the distinct possibility of Democrats securing the Senate leg of Congress as well.<\/p>\n “If these polls, these surveys are correct, and you know I am not someone who has good relations with pollsters, this is highly probable,” Doster said. Evaluating the immediate domestic institutional impact, he explained: “A Trump who has fallen into the minority in both wings of Congress, a Trump who has fallen into a ‘lame duck’ status in US political science terminology, considering the social, cultural, class, political, and ideological divisions, fault lines, separations, and polarizations in the US, will be a Trump whose hand is very weakened.”<\/p>\n Doster maintained that an opposition-controlled legislature would actively seek to constrain executive authority, forcing the administration into constitutional confrontations and unilateral maneuvers. “The Democratic majority in both wings of Congress, if that is the case, we do not know yet because we do not have the election results, will try to restrain and check Trump as much as possible,” Doster said. “And in return, what will Trump do? He will try to get things done with executive orders to the extent that the US system allows. He will use his veto card, and so on and so forth. So, in the coming days, if Trump loses the majority, whether in one wing or both wings, it means bigger tensions and bigger debates await us in US politics. Will this inevitably reflect on US foreign policy as well? Yes, it will reflect.”<\/p>\n “The US voter cares more about their car’s fuel than where their soldiers are occupying”<\/strong><\/p>\n Responding to questions from \u0130lhamo\u011flu Akko\u00e7 regarding Trump’s campaign pledges to suppress inflation, improve everyday living conditions, and terminate overseas military interventions, Doster stressed that fundamental economic determinants consistently outweigh foreign policy considerations in voter psychology worldwide.<\/p>\n “My dear colleague Elif, you and I, in all the books written about voter behavior in the world, all research conducted, and all articles penned, what always emerges most clearly? This emerges. What is the most important, primary factor influencing voter behavior? It is the economic trend,” Doster said. “It is the cost of living, inflation, unemployment figures, and so on and so forth. This is as valid for our voters as it is for US voters.”<\/p>\n Weighing the political durability of security developments against domestic material welfare, Doster continued: “Does your success in foreign policy affect the voter? It does. But if there is inflation, high cost of living, poverty, and unemployment, that effect remains limited. Does a success in foreign policy or, say, the fight against terrorism affect the voter? Undoubtedly, it does. But is its impact on the voter, its lasting effect in the eyes of the voter, longer, or is the government’s success in the economy longer-lasting? Of course, economic success is longer-lasting.”<\/p>\n Doster observed that empirical voting patterns affirm this persistent reality: “What have we been saying together in our programs from the beginning? The US voter cares more about their car’s fuel, their fuel, their gallons, their gasoline, than where their country or soldiers are occupying. And these polls and other articles written regarding the US elections have confirmed both you and me. It has reaffirmed it once again. So, the voter here is not looking at whether Trump pulls out troops or not, or his success regarding the Russia issue. The voter will cast their vote at the ballot box by considering the money entering or leaving their pocket.”<\/p>\n “Every country has its own unique conditions, realities, and political climate”<\/strong><\/p>\n The dialogue subsequently reviewed broader international electoral contests, with \u0130lhamo\u011flu Akko\u00e7 noting political reverses for Trump-aligned figures globally, including Viktor Orban in Hungary, Jair Bolsonaro’s political camp in Brazil following Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s presidential triumph, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s inability to capture a governing majority in Israel’s Knesset.<\/p>\n Doster cautioned against conflating disparate national electoral results into a single international verdict on Trump, arguing that every sovereign state operates within its own localized socio-political parameters. “Now, every country’s own social, historical, political, cultural, class-based, and economic reality is different,” Doster stated. “Undoubtedly, voters with very high political consciousness or those who look at life from an anti-imperialist perspective like you and me might be happy that the candidates Trump supported lost. But what is the percentage of these voters? That is what needs to be asked.”<\/p>\n Analyzing the Brazilian presidential election, Doster recalled the structural strengths of Latin America’s largest nation, highlighting its independent defense and civil aviation industries. He underscored the turnaround achieved by Lula da Silva after trailing in the first round: “In the first round of the presidential elections, Lula da Silva was behind. It even caused a bit of pessimism. What happened? He had a very successful term. He operated very powerfully on social media. His fans and supporters ran a very strong campaign, and in the second round of the election, Lula da Silva, who was behind in the first round, caught up, smashed through, and took it.” Referring to former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, whom Doster recalled labeling the “Tropical Trump,” he remarked on his post-election departure to the US: “As soon as he saw the results, he fled to the US. This should not surprise us.”<\/p>\n Nevertheless, Doster dismissed broad-brush interpretations: “Can one draw the conclusion that voters and citizens in different parts of the world are sending a message to Trump, based on Lula da Silva’s success, Orban’s failure in Hungary, or the fact that the genocidal murderer Netanyahu, despite being the largest party, could not secure enough seats in the Knesset to form a government alone? I do not think that conclusion follows. Because every country has its own, in legal terminology they call it sui generis, right? Its own unique conditions, realities, political climate, priorities, social and political demands, and expectations.”<\/p>\n “I do not see a nuclear option on the table”<\/strong><\/p>\n Turning to tensions in the Middle East and assertions voiced by figures such as US commentator Tucker Carlson, alongside reporting in publications like The New York Times and The Washington Post suggesting prospective post-election US military strikes against Iran, Doster offered a skeptical assessment regarding the likelihood of an all-out military confrontation.<\/p>\n “As you will remember from our previous programs, I said that there would be some tensions around the Strait of Hormuz, some armed skirmishes, and some airstrikes by US imperialism,” Doster noted. “But, like that 40-day continuous, intense, uninterrupted bombardment we witnessed in recent months; a ruthless, barbaric massacre or a genocidal attack targeting all of Iran’s military targets, civilian targets, infrastructure, energy facilities, and even hospitals and schools in Iran, no, I said I do not expect that.”<\/p>\n Doster argued that domestic legislative gridlock and social polarization within the US would curtail executive militarism abroad. “Especially after the elections, I think a Trump who has lost both wings, both the Senate and the House of Representatives, will not have the same audacity he had before the election and will be more cautious,” Doster said. “Also, this polarization in US politics exists within US society as well; whether in terms of wealth and poverty, between whites, Hispanics, Latinos, and African Americans, or between Republicans and Democrats. As long as this polarization, this division, and this tension, in the sense of states bordering the ocean, more liberal states, and the more interior states, continues, and to the extent that it becomes cemented by these election results, I think Trump’s hand is weaker, will be weaker, and this will inevitably be reflected in Iran policy as well. Especially no matter how much the murderous, genocidal Netanyahu encourages or provokes it, I do not see a nuclear option on the table.”<\/p>\n “Iran has shown it possesses the military capacity, courage, and will to strike”<\/strong><\/p>\n Weighing domestic political instability in Israel, where Netanyahu’s Likud emerged as the largest party but fell short of the 61-seat threshold in the 120-seat Knesset, \u0130lhamo\u011flu Akko\u00e7 raised whether Netanyahu might initiate an aggressive foreign diversion against Iran to consolidate domestic power ahead of potential early elections, especially against rivals such as former Chief of General Staff Gadi Eizenkot.<\/p>\n Doster acknowledged the risk of political provocations while maintaining that structural strategic factors prohibit an unconstrained assault. Addressing Netanyahu’s domestic maneuvering, Doster remarked: “By pushing security-oriented rhetoric, by pushing the external threat, the Iran threat, to the forefront just as he consolidates his own voters, could he engage in every kind of provocation in the event of a possible election renewal or repetition, just to complete those missing seats? Yes. This genocidal, this murderer can do it. As he has done in the past.”<\/p>\n However, Doster outlined three critical barriers preventing such escalation: “One, a nuclear option means that Iran would also retaliate on the same scale with all its means and capabilities. Two, putting such a madness, such an option into play means further increasing the anti-Israel sentiment that has already risen and damaging the support for Israel, which has already hit rock bottom in global public opinion, including in the West. And a third point is this: Iran has shown repeatedly so far that it possesses the military technological capacity, the courage, and the will to strike Israel, and that it has an inventory and stock of weapons beyond what was estimated.”<\/p>\n Doster observed that Washington’s operational limits restrain Israeli action: “That is why I believe that Israel, while receiving all kinds of support from the US but not receiving it on the field, without receiving support on the field, in the combat zone, in the theater of war, and receiving all other kinds of US support outside of that, I do not think Israel could attempt such a thing from here on out, just as it has not dared to until now. In that case, I foresee that the Iran war will perhaps not flare up but rather dampen, in parallel with the election results.”<\/p>\n “Russia will not withdraw from the field without getting what it wants”<\/strong><\/p>\n Shifting the discussion to the conflict in Ukraine, \u0130lhamo\u011flu Akko\u00e7 pointed out that Trump’s stated ambition to settle the fighting within a week had stalled amid protracted positional warfare, even as prospective tripartite negotiations involving delegations from the US, Russia, and Ukraine were scheduled for 10-11 November in Abu Dhabi.<\/p>\n Reviewing Moscow’s operational characterization of the conflict, Doster said: “The Russians, in the Ukraine War, stated that they were primarily fighting against NATO, the Atlantic, and the West, and that they understood the military operation towards Ukraine as a special military operation. And they stated it repeatedly. When there was an armed Russian intervention into Ukrainian territory, there was an act of aggression. They said, ‘No friend, this is not like that.’ What did they say in their own terminology? They said this is a special military operation. They said, ‘We are fighting the real war against the West.'”<\/p>\n Assessing the trajectory of the campaign as it passes roughly its fifth year, Doster acknowledged that operational timelines had expanded: “Is there the desired speed from Russia’s perspective? Has the desired military and political result been achieved so far? No, it has not. It is Ukraine’s resilience and resistance, but not Ukraine’s own dynamics alone. You might say factors outside of Ukraine. Call it US support. Call it private military companies. Call it Europe’s support. Call it foreign intelligence. Call it whatever you want.”<\/p>\n Nevertheless, Doster argued that strategic realities ultimately favor Moscow: “At the end of the day, Russia is Russia. Russia will get what it wants. It will not withdraw from the field without getting what it wants. Russia will not walk away from the table. And at the end of the day, no matter how much Ukraine resists, it is the losing side. Well, whether this period will be 5 years, 6 years, 8 years, or 10 years, we cannot estimate that right now. But at the end of the day, Russia is the winner, a winner even if the cost is heavy. Ukraine will be the losing side in the end, even if it resists.”<\/p>\n “Ukraine will appear as a state with shrunk territory and battered industry”<\/strong><\/p>\n Detailing the structural fallout for Ukraine, Doster outlined four enduring territorial and socioeconomic consequences: “One, Ukraine emerges somewhat smaller. It loses territory. Two, it also loses a portion of the Ukrainian cities and Ukrainian territories that border the Black Sea, that have a coast on the Black Sea. Three, with its industrial infrastructure heavily battered, it will rise from the war table. It will sit at the negotiation table like that. It will sign the peace like that. Four, it is a side that has lost its people very seriously. There is a serious loss of life in both Ukraine and Russia. Plus, in Ukraine, beyond those who died on the front, there is also an intense migration to the West. There is a qualified brain drain taking place.”<\/p>\n Summarizing the future configuration of the Ukrainian state, Doster said: “So, at the end of the day, Ukraine will appear before us as a state with a very weakened industry, its qualified people having left the country, its territory shrunk, and as a mediocre agricultural producer and grain producer. But whether it is 5 years, 7 years, or 8 years from today, I cannot know that right now.”<\/p>\n Regarding the outcome for Moscow, Doster concluded: “Although Russia is also battered, has lost many people, and is economically tired and worn out, at the end of the day, it achieves a great gain even if the cost is high. Ukraine’s NATO membership will be out of the question. Other neighboring countries considering NATO membership will also have to reconsider their decisions.”<\/p>\n “Foreign policy is a continuation of domestic policy”<\/strong><\/p>\n Concluding the interview, \u0130lhamo\u011flu Akko\u00e7 drew attention to the forthcoming APEC Leaders’ Summit scheduled for 18-19 November in Shenzhen, China, where Trump is expected to convene alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin amid ongoing diplomatic talks over Ukraine and Iran.<\/p>\n Asked whether tangible accords could emerge from the tripartite gathering, Doster expressed deep skepticism, tying diplomatic bargaining power directly to electoral legitimacy: “There will not be any concrete outcome. If Trump emerges defeated in today’s elections, Trump will arrive at that table as a, to use the term from US literature, a lame duck. What do we always talk about? We talk about this in our lectures. That foreign policy is a continuation of domestic policy. Since there will be a weak Trump at the table, nothing will come out of it.”<\/p>\n Contrasting Trump’s political vulnerability with the institutional positioning of his counterparts, Doster underscored Beijing and Moscow’s consolidation: “Plus, there are two other strong leaders at that table alongside Trump. Okay, Trump is the US president, but who are the leaders beside him? The Chinese leader and the Russian leader. China is currently a great power that knows time is on its side. A strong economy. Russia, yes, it did not get what it wanted in Ukraine in the first year or the first two years. Things dragged on a bit. Things got a bit complicated, as you would put it, but in the end, Russia is still Russia.”<\/p>\n Doster observed that Western forecasts regarding Russia had failed to materialize: “Russia did not take a step back as a result of the expectations and wishes of Western commentators and analysts. It did not collapse either. It did not give up either. What were they saying? They were saying, domestically, the people will revolt. The Putin regime will be toppled. Russia will collapse and fall apart. None of these happened. Russia showed that its military resistance, its political resilience, and even its economic endurance were far stronger than what the Westerners had estimated, expected, or desired.”<\/p>\n “A US president whose hegemony capability is declining has the weakest hand”<\/strong><\/p>\n Doster summarized the balance of power at the upcoming summit table, emphasizing that structural domestic decline directly diminishes external projection: “So, Putin also has a strong hand at that table. Xi Jinping already has a strong hand. But if the election results today go against Trump, who is the person who will sit at that table with a weak hand? It is the US president.”<\/p>\n Broadening his assessment to Washington’s standing on the global stage, Doster observed: “Let us move from domestic politics to foreign policy. The candidates he supported have lost the election. A US president whose economy is not doing well, whose imperialist capacity, hegemony capability, and global dominance are weakening and declining, is the leader with the weakest hand among the three sitting at that table, not just due to domestic politics, but due to foreign policy as well.”<\/p>\n