America's verdict and Pakistan's steady course

The results of the US midterm elections held on November 3 have delivered a resounding message from the American electorate. Democrats have swept both the House of Representatives and the Senate, flipping seats in districts that President Donald Trump carried comfortably just two years ago and reclaiming governorships and state legislatures once considered Republican strongholds. For the final two years of Trump's second term, Washington will be a divided capital.

It would be tempting to read this verdict primarily through a foreign policy lens, but that would be a mistake. American elections are, first and foremost, an expression of domestic anxieties. Inflation, the cost of groceries and fuel, healthcare subsidies and deep partisan polarisation shaped how most Americans cast their votes. Midterms have historically punished the party in power, and this year the backlash was amplified by a president whose approval ratings had sunk to historic lows. Any analysis that ignores these internal dynamics and domestic wrangling risks misunderstanding what Americans were actually voting on.

Yet domestic and foreign concerns are rarely separable, and this election made that unusually plain. The outcome is certain to have profound effects on US foreign policy. A Democratic Congress will hold the purse strings, control committee investigations and war powers debates, and press the administration far harder on overseas commitments than a compliant Republican majority ever did.

Nowhere is this more relevant than in the Middle East. The war with Iran, launched in the expectation of a swift victory, dragged on for months, pushed up energy prices and unsettled global markets. Pre-election polling consistently placed it among voters' top concerns, ahead even of immigration and crime, the very issues on which Trump had campaigned so successfully in 2024. Independents turned decisively against the conflict, and cracks appeared within the President's own base, many of whom had backed him precisely because he promised to end America's "forever wars". Even Vice President JD Vance has pointed to the Iran war as a factor behind the Republican losses.

In this sense, the Republicans' defeat also reflects growing unrest among Americans over a war that many saw as driven more by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's strategic calculations than by America's own interests. Trump, his critics argue, fell into Netanyahu's trap and allowed himself to be drawn into a conflict that proved a conundrum for the United States: costly, open-ended and without a clear exit. The electorate has now registered its disapproval.

It is therefore reasonable to expect that the contours of future American foreign policy will be less dominated by Israeli priorities. A Congress more sceptical of military adventurism, more attentive to humanitarian concerns and more responsive to a public weary of war could open space for diplomacy over coercion. That would be welcome news for the Muslim world, and especially for the Middle East, which has borne the human and economic cost of successive cycles of escalation.

It is against this backdrop that Pakistan's role deserves recognition. When the US-Iran war threatened to engulf the entire region, it was Pakistan that kept channels open to both sides. Islamabad's backchannel diplomacy helped secure the ceasefire announced in April, brought the adversaries to the negotiating table in Islamabad and continued to facilitate dialogue in the months that followed. The United Nations, the European Union, Germany, the United Kingdom, Malaysia, Australia and many others publicly acknowledged Pakistan's contribution. Pakistan was able to do what few others could: speak with credibility to Washington, Tehran and the Gulf capitals at the same time, without being seen as aligned with any one camp.

This is the fruit of balanced and astute diplomacy, and it has earned Pakistan unprecedented respect in the Muslim world and the West alike. Importantly, this enhanced stature cannot be attributed to the goodwill or patronage of any single individual in Washington or elsewhere. It rests on an across-the-board acknowledgement of Pakistan's sincerity as a peace broker, shared by governments of differing political persuasions. Such respect is not hostage to an election cycle; it is likely to prevail as long as Pakistan continues its efforts for peace.

Some may wonder whether a shift in Washington's political balance will diminish Pakistan's newfound relevance. That concern is misplaced. Policies may change in tone and emphasis, and Islamabad will need to engage the new congressional leadership with the same diligence it has shown the White House. But the logic of Pakistan's diplomacy is not built around personalities. It is built around principles: dialogue over confrontation, regional stability, respect for sovereignty and solidarity with the Muslim world.

Notwithstanding a likely change in US policies, Pakistan will continue to pursue its efforts in line with the aspirations of its people and its larger national interests. Peace in the Middle East, stability in South Asia and constructive relations with all major powers are not favours Pakistan seeks from others; they are goals it pursues for its own security and prosperity. The American voter has spoken. Pakistan's course, guided by its own compass, remains steady.