Because of November 3, when the midterm elections were held in the United States, and October 27, when Israel went to the polls in parliamentary elections, the world began asking itself the question: “Can elections change a country?” It became clear that American voters read their country’s foreign policy at gas stations, but some did not fail to recall that Machiavelli had already said: “Wars begin when you want them to, but they do not end when you want them to.” The Persians—that is, the Iranians—declared during the first US and Israeli attack on the ayatollahs’ state: “You start the war, but we decide when it ends.” Republicans in the United States lost the House of Representatives and the Senate, and J. D. Vance explained the defeat in a single sentence after the elections: “The reason we lost is the war.” Trump had to admit that “this assessment is largely correct.” And concern began to grow over whether Trump would launch a new attack on Iran. Because the Democrats’ sword of Damocles—impeachment—could most easily be diverted by a military operation. When Bill Clinton faced impeachment, the United States launched Operation “Desert Fox” in Iraq, and the debate over distraction in Washington continued for weeks.
But campaign promises to stop all wars are forcing a strong inclination to keep the door open to diplomacy. Vance even sent a letter to Mohsen Rezaee, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, shortly before the elections. The same Rezaee to whom Putin sent his personal aircraft in Tehran so that they could speak for three hours in the Kremlin. Because the Russian president declared that he would mediate in resolving problems in the Middle East—that is, the wars. And Rezaee was undoubtedly seeking a more active role from Russia and, accordingly, military support. Both countries are members of BRICS. They share interests and joint pipeline projects. Meanwhile, before travelling to Abu Dhabi to join the Russian delegation for negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, mediated by the United States, General Kostyukov, head of Russian military intelligence, landed in Tel Aviv in his special aircraft, accompanied by military planes. The Russians were reportedly going to evacuate the families of their diplomats from Israel. A signal or a distraction from the situation? But it can be assumed that there was also a warning about what would happen if a new attack on Tehran were initiated. Just as, before Abu Dhabi, Abramovich landed in Kyiv with certain messages—and perhaps to clarify positions. They say it was “without result.” Regardless of the fact that it was a conversation between a Jew and Jews. Putin is like the many-armed Shiva, weaving on several looms at once. Especially in a situation described as follows: “The superpower America, for the first time in diplomatic history, finds itself helpless despite all the cards it holds.” This is being written in the West, where they are waiting. The elections showed that the cracks in Washington are real, and that the division among Republicans is real rather than a tactical display. So, can elections change a country? And will Russian diesel be barred from the ports of the US East Coast? It had been a signal of the normalisation of relations—not so much of lower prices. It is worth recalling Abraham Lincoln’s words that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” The question is whether Trump’s house is divided and in which direction the scales are tipping. Because after such an electoral loss, there will undoubtedly be changes in policy. If Trump truly directs his attacks against Iran’s energy and industrial infrastructure, Tehran’s response will target not only American bases and interests in the region, but also oil facilities in the Persian Gulf, primarily Aramco. Those facilities hold capital belonging to BlackRock, and any Iranian retaliation in the region would mean decades of economic and strategic losses for that capital. BlackRock is the world’s largest asset management company, with assets worth more than $15 trillion. No country other than China and the United States has a national income on that scale. Trump is unlikely to risk irresponsible actions that would cost him dearly. Iran knows this very well. Hormuz remains closed. The issue of Bab el-Mandeb has not been resolved. And it is difficult to make concessions to Iran. Apparently, there will be vacillation between threats and attacks, low-intensity military operations and rumours of agreements “soon.” Negotiations and agreements on the nuclear issue and the Strait of Hormuz are also ahead. A response will be needed from Tehran to their proposal to stop the war under seven conditions. With a strategy of “America First” and promises to keep America away from endless and costly wars, it now turns out that there is no option for a winning strategy. That is why Trump changes his views several times a day. The war has not been won, nor has peace been established. Domestic politics is paying the price of the war, but is there the will and a way to acknowledge defeat or a change of paradigm? Does this mean that the result of November 3 is not merely an internal matter for the United States? Congress is unable to stop this war against Iran, and that will increase its cost. Iran will not abandon its maximalist demands toward the United States. Democrats will be forced to agree to those demands if they are the ones who follow. At a moment when a scandal is erupting between Trump and Netanyahu, because the Israeli prime minister, who lost the October 27 elections, had insisted that Trump be re-elected prime minister and that Iran be attacked again. On the eve of the presumed meeting between Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping in Shenzhen, China? Where the intention is to reach an understanding on the overall architecture of the world, because no one can resolve global problems alone. They are like communicating vessels, because the post-World War II order no longer suits them. Influence, corridors, borders, border controls, rare metals—and even espionage scandals such as the one involving NVIDIA—not to mention the war in Ukraine and Europe. That Europe whose security architecture will be decided without it. Is it really a coincidence that Secretary of State Rubio, on his way to the G7 meeting in Paris, mentioned that “the end of the war in Ukraine will be decided on Russia’s terms”? A carrot for Putin? At a time when Moscow has become convinced that its only friends are truly the army and the navy? But it is supposedly flexible now, Rubio says again. On the contrary, even Ryabkov has lost his traditional diplomatic language. Not to mention Lavrov. In Vienna, at an OSCE forum, Ryabkov said: “If you do anything against Kaliningrad, we will respond immediately with all available means.” Just as Iran told Yerevan that “if it allows the United States into the South Caucasus because of the construction of the ‘Trump Route,’ Tehran’s red lines will have been crossed and an attack will follow.” Such a presence on Iran’s border is considered in Tehran to be an attack on national security.
Here, people used to say that “if elections decided anything, they would ban them.” But now, in the United States, they are waiting for Congress to reopen its doors so that changes can take place. And Fox News, at the direction of its owner Rupert Murdoch, has for some time been looking for a new, loyal owner. This is flexibility. Not like after Orbán, when employees at pro-Orbán media outlets began atoning for their political sins through self-criticism. It was the same in Belgrade after Vučić lost the elections. So elections do change things after all—if not an entire country, then at least something within it. Elections are expected in France, Germany, Poland, Italy, Spain, Austria and, one by one, across Europe. We will see after Shenzhen. If it takes place.