Saif
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2024
- Messages
- 22,135
- Likes
- 9,868
- Nation
- Residence
- Axis Group
Date of Event:
Nov 7, 2026
US Midterm Elections: A ‘regime change’ in the US without bloodshed
[🇺🇸] Mid Term Election In The USA
- Thread starter Saif
- Start date
American Defense
Saif
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2024
- Messages
- 22,135
- Likes
- 9,868
- Nation
- Residence
- Axis Group
After the midterm defeat, can Trump be forced to end the Iran war?
Democrats could use Congress’s control over war funding to end Trump’s Iran war, despite significant political risks.
After the midterm defeat, can Trump be forced to end the Iran war?
Markus Wagner
The Democrats’ sweeping victory in the US midterm elections puts them in a stronger position to interfere with President Donald Trump’s agenda. This includes his deeply unpopular and costly war against Iran, which could be among their first priorities.
As president, Trump will be able to veto any legislation aimed at ending the war. But the Democrats still have another powerful card up their sleeves: cutting off funding for the war.
There are caveats, however. History suggests exercising this power could trigger a political confrontation that may backfire. And even if the Democrats succeed in ending the war, they may not be able to reverse the damage it has done to the US’ global standing.
The limits of legislation
Democrats will have three main options to try to force the war against Iran to a close. Two of these, however, face significant limitations.
The first – and perhaps most obvious – option is through legislation. There are a few different ways to do this.
One approach is to pass a resolution calling for an end to the war.
Congress already attempted this in June, passing a concurrent resolution (with the support of some Republicans) that directed the president to either withdraw US forces from hostilities against Iran or seek the approval of Congress before continuing. This was done under the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
These so-called concurrent resolutions are, however, widely seen as non-binding. Intended to express the opinion or will of Congress, they are generally used to deal with internal matters within Congress.
Trump ignored it. A similar resolution then failed in the Senate in September.
For such a resolution to be binding, it would need the force of a law passed by Congress, which the president would likely veto. To overcome that veto, the Democrats would need the support of a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate. This would require a significant number of Republicans to cross the aisle.
In the wake of a rout at the midterms, US Vice President JD Vance has distanced himself from the president’s stance on Iran. White House Handout/EPA
Exercising oversight
A second option for the Democrats is to launch a series of congressional investigations into the way the war has been conducted. This would likely include public hearings, subpoenas and demands for documents from the Trump administration.
The Democrats may also attempt to impeach senior officials in the Trump administration.
If Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrat tipped to become the next speaker of the House, wants to appease some of the more progressive voices in his party – or the hardline voices on the Iran war or against Trump – Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth could be targeted for impeachment.
But the grounds for such proceedings are unclear at this stage, and even with the Democrats’ new Senate majority, he would be unlikely to be convicted unless a significant number of Republicans crossed the aisle.
More pertinently, congressional investigations are a protracted process, and unlikely to bring the war to a swift end.
The ‘power of the purse’
The more immediate power that Congress has to end the war swiftly is in Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution, which states:
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law […]
This is known as the “power of the purse”.
Once the new Congress is sworn in in January, every new dollar that Trump’s Department of War wants to spend needs to be approved by the House and the Senate.
A Democrat-controlled Congress could put a clause into the defence budget, prohibiting funds from being used for hostilities against Iran. Trump could veto this, but this would mean blocking the paycheck for everyone in the military, as well.
The Democrats tried this very approach in 2007, attempting to force a timetable for a US withdrawal from Iraq. Then-President George W. Bush vetoed it, but it became a political football, with both sides accusing the other of leaving US troops unfunded.
The Democrats ultimately backed down due to the growing risk of backlash from voters.
Today, this approach would carry a similar risk. Are the Democrats willing to put their political credibility on the line if the president accuses them of letting American soldiers down? Who blinks first?
A protester holds a banner reading “No war on Iran” during an anti-war demonstration in Los Angeles, California, on June 21, 2025. Photo: Reuters
Republicans face a reckoning
As the dust settled on Wednesday, Trump himself acknowledged the Iran war had played a role in the Republican Party’s crushing defeat. But he doubled down on the decision, saying he would do it all over again if necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Vice President JD Vance was less defensive. In a detailed statement posted to X, Vance bluntly declared the war was the reason the Republicans lost. He added, “any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there”.
Vance has long criticised US military involvement in overseas conflicts, but in his role as vice president has publicly backed Trump’s actions against Iran.
This week’s overwhelming Democratic victory has made it much easier for Vance – and other Republicans – to now break ranks with the president.
The balance of power has shifted
For Trump, bringing the war to an end now would mean humiliation. The US has so far poured almost US$50 billion into a military campaign with few tangible achievements.
On top of that, Iran has learned that the Strait of Hormuz is a chokepoint it can control. The same is true for the Bab al-Mandeb Strait off the coast of Yemen, where the Iran-aligned Houthis have attacked commercial ships.
These costs will outlast the Trump presidency. The war might definitively bring to an end the unipolar global order Washington built after the end of the Cold War. The biggest winner may not be Tehran, but Beijing.
This article was first published under the title “With control of Congress, here’s how Democrats could stop Trump’s war in Iran” in The Conversation, on November 5, 2026.
Markus Wagner is a Professor of Law and Director of the UOW Transnational Law and Policy Centre, University of Wollongong.
Markus Wagner
The Democrats’ sweeping victory in the US midterm elections puts them in a stronger position to interfere with President Donald Trump’s agenda. This includes his deeply unpopular and costly war against Iran, which could be among their first priorities.
As president, Trump will be able to veto any legislation aimed at ending the war. But the Democrats still have another powerful card up their sleeves: cutting off funding for the war.
There are caveats, however. History suggests exercising this power could trigger a political confrontation that may backfire. And even if the Democrats succeed in ending the war, they may not be able to reverse the damage it has done to the US’ global standing.
The limits of legislation
Democrats will have three main options to try to force the war against Iran to a close. Two of these, however, face significant limitations.
The first – and perhaps most obvious – option is through legislation. There are a few different ways to do this.
One approach is to pass a resolution calling for an end to the war.
Congress already attempted this in June, passing a concurrent resolution (with the support of some Republicans) that directed the president to either withdraw US forces from hostilities against Iran or seek the approval of Congress before continuing. This was done under the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
These so-called concurrent resolutions are, however, widely seen as non-binding. Intended to express the opinion or will of Congress, they are generally used to deal with internal matters within Congress.
Trump ignored it. A similar resolution then failed in the Senate in September.
For such a resolution to be binding, it would need the force of a law passed by Congress, which the president would likely veto. To overcome that veto, the Democrats would need the support of a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate. This would require a significant number of Republicans to cross the aisle.
In the wake of a rout at the midterms, US Vice President JD Vance has distanced himself from the president’s stance on Iran. White House Handout/EPA
Exercising oversight
A second option for the Democrats is to launch a series of congressional investigations into the way the war has been conducted. This would likely include public hearings, subpoenas and demands for documents from the Trump administration.
The Democrats may also attempt to impeach senior officials in the Trump administration.
If Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrat tipped to become the next speaker of the House, wants to appease some of the more progressive voices in his party – or the hardline voices on the Iran war or against Trump – Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth could be targeted for impeachment.
But the grounds for such proceedings are unclear at this stage, and even with the Democrats’ new Senate majority, he would be unlikely to be convicted unless a significant number of Republicans crossed the aisle.
More pertinently, congressional investigations are a protracted process, and unlikely to bring the war to a swift end.
The ‘power of the purse’
The more immediate power that Congress has to end the war swiftly is in Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution, which states:
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law […]
This is known as the “power of the purse”.
Once the new Congress is sworn in in January, every new dollar that Trump’s Department of War wants to spend needs to be approved by the House and the Senate.
A Democrat-controlled Congress could put a clause into the defence budget, prohibiting funds from being used for hostilities against Iran. Trump could veto this, but this would mean blocking the paycheck for everyone in the military, as well.
The Democrats tried this very approach in 2007, attempting to force a timetable for a US withdrawal from Iraq. Then-President George W. Bush vetoed it, but it became a political football, with both sides accusing the other of leaving US troops unfunded.
The Democrats ultimately backed down due to the growing risk of backlash from voters.
Today, this approach would carry a similar risk. Are the Democrats willing to put their political credibility on the line if the president accuses them of letting American soldiers down? Who blinks first?
A protester holds a banner reading “No war on Iran” during an anti-war demonstration in Los Angeles, California, on June 21, 2025. Photo: Reuters
Republicans face a reckoning
As the dust settled on Wednesday, Trump himself acknowledged the Iran war had played a role in the Republican Party’s crushing defeat. But he doubled down on the decision, saying he would do it all over again if necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Vice President JD Vance was less defensive. In a detailed statement posted to X, Vance bluntly declared the war was the reason the Republicans lost. He added, “any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there”.
Vance has long criticised US military involvement in overseas conflicts, but in his role as vice president has publicly backed Trump’s actions against Iran.
This week’s overwhelming Democratic victory has made it much easier for Vance – and other Republicans – to now break ranks with the president.
The balance of power has shifted
For Trump, bringing the war to an end now would mean humiliation. The US has so far poured almost US$50 billion into a military campaign with few tangible achievements.
On top of that, Iran has learned that the Strait of Hormuz is a chokepoint it can control. The same is true for the Bab al-Mandeb Strait off the coast of Yemen, where the Iran-aligned Houthis have attacked commercial ships.
These costs will outlast the Trump presidency. The war might definitively bring to an end the unipolar global order Washington built after the end of the Cold War. The biggest winner may not be Tehran, but Beijing.
This article was first published under the title “With control of Congress, here’s how Democrats could stop Trump’s war in Iran” in The Conversation, on November 5, 2026.
Markus Wagner is a Professor of Law and Director of the UOW Transnational Law and Policy Centre, University of Wollongong.
Saif
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2024
- Messages
- 22,135
- Likes
- 9,868
- Nation
- Residence
- Axis Group
What the US midterm results mean for Trump, Washington, and the wider world
The Democratic Party’s victory in both houses of Congress means not only the end of President Donald Trump’s absolute dominance, but also dramatic changes for Washington and potentially for the world.
What the US midterm results mean for Trump, Washington, and the wider world
Zillur Rahman
A Democratic Congress in the US will mean closer scrutiny of executive decisions, but Bangladesh should approach the political shift in Washington without taking sides. FILE PHOTO: Reuters
As the saying goes, Americans have indeed spoken in the 2026 midterms. The Democratic Party’s victory in both houses of Congress means not only the end of President Donald Trump’s absolute dominance, but also dramatic changes for Washington and potentially for the world. President Trump will now face a divided government until the end of his term. Nevertheless, the results of this year’s midterms have much broader implications for America than just division of power in Congress.
Democrats’ sweeping victory in traditionally Republican states of Texas, Ohio, Kansas, North Carolina, and others demonstrates the depth of disappointment of Americans with Trump’s administration. James Talarico’s victory in Texas and Sherrod Brown’s in Ohio are especially significant in this regard. However, reducing this event to an ideological swing towards the Democrats would mean failing to understand the real message Americans sent.
American voters made their decision mostly based on their personal economic situation. Inflation, rising gas prices, expensive groceries, and worries about their financial situation dominate Americans’ view of the administration’s political agenda. According to exit polling, about 39 percent of voters consider the economy the most important topic in this election, while almost one-third believes in the current state of democracy. Economic frustrations and worries about the state of institutions reinforced each other.
This is a very important lesson for any government. Governments can boast about their investment programmes, employment numbers, and growth of the stock market, but voters assess economic success through their purchasing power and economic safety. If people feel they cannot maintain their living standards, no impressive macroeconomic narrative matters.
Foreign policy entered this election directly through the average voter’s budget. US military involvement in the war with Iran and Trump’s tariff policies became a source of worry about prices, inflation, and economic uncertainty. Polls demonstrated that there is strong disapproval among Americans of the American military involvement in Iran. For many people, the link between military operations abroad and hard times at home becomes clear.
The administration’s political appeal has been partly based on promises made by Trump to avoid long, expensive military actions abroad, and put American interests first. Military involvement in Iran becomes a serious complication for this approach. However, this does not mean the midterm election should be seen as a call for Americans to embrace isolationism. Voters can oppose specific military actions but still reject internationalism entirely.
The election’s consequences for America’s internal situation could be dramatic too. A Democratic Congress opens the door to investigation, closer scrutiny of executive decisions, and budget oversight. The Trump administration’s plans for future work will be challenged, and budget negotiations may become highly contentious.
However, a divided government does not necessarily mean a dysfunctional government. The American political system is built on confrontation among institutions and limits on power. Scrutiny by Congress can strengthen democratic accountability, but only if it does not turn into permanent confrontation. Democrats should also show they can govern, not just obstruct the administration.
However, the international implications of this event should be considered as well. For Europe, this result could mean increased congressional support for transatlantic relations and Ukraine, but disagreements over defense spending and strategic priorities will continue. In the Middle East, Congress could require more transparency about American military operations, their financial costs, and the possibilities of diplomatic resolution. However, Congress cannot fully revise American foreign policy because the president has broad authority over diplomacy and national security.
The issue of China is another example of complications in relations. Despite differences in rhetoric and strategic actions, competition with China has quite broad bipartisan support in Washington. This means the midterm result is unlikely to change the overall strategy towards Beijing. Instead, disagreements will likely arise about tariffs, technological restrictions, alliance-building, and the balance between confrontation and cooperation with China.
For the international community, the bigger question is that of predictability. America’s decisions on trade, security, and international institutions have an impact far beyond its borders. Political confrontation in Washington could raise uncertainty about budgets, development assistance, and international obligations. However, closer scrutiny of Congress could contribute to more consultations and continuity in some areas of foreign policy.
Bangladesh should consider these events without taking a partisan position in American politics. Relations with Washington should be based not on the political preferences of any administration or political party, but on permanent national interests. There are many opportunities for cooperation on trade, investment, labour standards, maritime cooperation, technology, and regional security. Besides, Bangladesh should understand that the bipartisan concerns about institutions, human rights, and economic governance will continue to shape American foreign policy. It is important to build institutional relations, diversify partnerships, and expand cooperation across the political spectrum to pursue sustainable diplomacy.
For the Democrats, there is a test. Election victories achieved largely because of dissatisfaction with the incumbent administration do not automatically build public trust in the Democrats’ alternative programme. Now they should offer a credible alternative on affordability, migration, health care, and international relations. Otherwise, today’s successes could be temporary.
Trump faces an important limit on his presidential power, but not the end of his political influence. His executive power remains strong, and the Republican Party has a big constituency. Therefore, the next two years could be characterised by either increased institutional confrontation or bipartisan agreement.
In general, this US midterm election has demonstrated a democratic truth: the political mandate is never unconditional or eternal. Economic concerns, controversial foreign interventions, and worries about accountability can change electorates even in highly polarised societies. American voters have changed Congress. The future success of this change depends on Washington’s actions.
Zillur Rahman is a political analyst and president at the Centre for Governance Studies (CGS). He hosts ‘Tritiyo Matra’ on Channel i.
Zillur Rahman
A Democratic Congress in the US will mean closer scrutiny of executive decisions, but Bangladesh should approach the political shift in Washington without taking sides. FILE PHOTO: Reuters
As the saying goes, Americans have indeed spoken in the 2026 midterms. The Democratic Party’s victory in both houses of Congress means not only the end of President Donald Trump’s absolute dominance, but also dramatic changes for Washington and potentially for the world. President Trump will now face a divided government until the end of his term. Nevertheless, the results of this year’s midterms have much broader implications for America than just division of power in Congress.
Democrats’ sweeping victory in traditionally Republican states of Texas, Ohio, Kansas, North Carolina, and others demonstrates the depth of disappointment of Americans with Trump’s administration. James Talarico’s victory in Texas and Sherrod Brown’s in Ohio are especially significant in this regard. However, reducing this event to an ideological swing towards the Democrats would mean failing to understand the real message Americans sent.
American voters made their decision mostly based on their personal economic situation. Inflation, rising gas prices, expensive groceries, and worries about their financial situation dominate Americans’ view of the administration’s political agenda. According to exit polling, about 39 percent of voters consider the economy the most important topic in this election, while almost one-third believes in the current state of democracy. Economic frustrations and worries about the state of institutions reinforced each other.
This is a very important lesson for any government. Governments can boast about their investment programmes, employment numbers, and growth of the stock market, but voters assess economic success through their purchasing power and economic safety. If people feel they cannot maintain their living standards, no impressive macroeconomic narrative matters.
Foreign policy entered this election directly through the average voter’s budget. US military involvement in the war with Iran and Trump’s tariff policies became a source of worry about prices, inflation, and economic uncertainty. Polls demonstrated that there is strong disapproval among Americans of the American military involvement in Iran. For many people, the link between military operations abroad and hard times at home becomes clear.
The administration’s political appeal has been partly based on promises made by Trump to avoid long, expensive military actions abroad, and put American interests first. Military involvement in Iran becomes a serious complication for this approach. However, this does not mean the midterm election should be seen as a call for Americans to embrace isolationism. Voters can oppose specific military actions but still reject internationalism entirely.
The election’s consequences for America’s internal situation could be dramatic too. A Democratic Congress opens the door to investigation, closer scrutiny of executive decisions, and budget oversight. The Trump administration’s plans for future work will be challenged, and budget negotiations may become highly contentious.
However, a divided government does not necessarily mean a dysfunctional government. The American political system is built on confrontation among institutions and limits on power. Scrutiny by Congress can strengthen democratic accountability, but only if it does not turn into permanent confrontation. Democrats should also show they can govern, not just obstruct the administration.
However, the international implications of this event should be considered as well. For Europe, this result could mean increased congressional support for transatlantic relations and Ukraine, but disagreements over defense spending and strategic priorities will continue. In the Middle East, Congress could require more transparency about American military operations, their financial costs, and the possibilities of diplomatic resolution. However, Congress cannot fully revise American foreign policy because the president has broad authority over diplomacy and national security.
The issue of China is another example of complications in relations. Despite differences in rhetoric and strategic actions, competition with China has quite broad bipartisan support in Washington. This means the midterm result is unlikely to change the overall strategy towards Beijing. Instead, disagreements will likely arise about tariffs, technological restrictions, alliance-building, and the balance between confrontation and cooperation with China.
For the international community, the bigger question is that of predictability. America’s decisions on trade, security, and international institutions have an impact far beyond its borders. Political confrontation in Washington could raise uncertainty about budgets, development assistance, and international obligations. However, closer scrutiny of Congress could contribute to more consultations and continuity in some areas of foreign policy.
Bangladesh should consider these events without taking a partisan position in American politics. Relations with Washington should be based not on the political preferences of any administration or political party, but on permanent national interests. There are many opportunities for cooperation on trade, investment, labour standards, maritime cooperation, technology, and regional security. Besides, Bangladesh should understand that the bipartisan concerns about institutions, human rights, and economic governance will continue to shape American foreign policy. It is important to build institutional relations, diversify partnerships, and expand cooperation across the political spectrum to pursue sustainable diplomacy.
For the Democrats, there is a test. Election victories achieved largely because of dissatisfaction with the incumbent administration do not automatically build public trust in the Democrats’ alternative programme. Now they should offer a credible alternative on affordability, migration, health care, and international relations. Otherwise, today’s successes could be temporary.
Trump faces an important limit on his presidential power, but not the end of his political influence. His executive power remains strong, and the Republican Party has a big constituency. Therefore, the next two years could be characterised by either increased institutional confrontation or bipartisan agreement.
In general, this US midterm election has demonstrated a democratic truth: the political mandate is never unconditional or eternal. Economic concerns, controversial foreign interventions, and worries about accountability can change electorates even in highly polarised societies. American voters have changed Congress. The future success of this change depends on Washington’s actions.
Zillur Rahman is a political analyst and president at the Centre for Governance Studies (CGS). He hosts ‘Tritiyo Matra’ on Channel i.
