Ардчилсан нам Конгрессын хяналтыг авбал Трампын бодлогыг хязгаарлаж болох ч шинжээчид гадаад бодлогын чиглэл өөрчлөгдөх эсэхэд санал зөрж байна.
АНУ-ын завсрын сонгуулиар Ардчилсан нам Төлөөлөгчдийн танхим болон Сенатын олонхыг авбал Ираны дайн, Израйлд үзүүлэх цэргийн тусламжийн санхүүжилтийг хязгаарлахын зэрэгцээ Украйнд тусламжийг сэргээхэд Трампын засаг захиргааг шахаж магадгүй гэж хуульч Эндрю Наполитано үзжээ. Мөн Конгрессын шалгалт, мөрдөн байцаалт олшрох нь Ерөнхийлөгчийн гадаад бодлогод төвлөрөх боломжийг хумина гэж тэр хэлсэн байна.
Үндсэн хууль судлаач Дэн Лазарын үзэж буйгаар, Ардчилсан нам аль нэг танхимд хяналтаа тогтоовол улс төрийн туйлшрал гүнзгийрч, ОХУ болон БНХАУ-д чиглэсэн хатуу байр суурь нэмэгдэж болзошгүй. Трампын засаг захиргаа, Конгрессын хоорондын сөргөлдөөн бодлого боловсруулах үйл явцыг гацааж, сонгууль бүр улс төрийн зөрчлийг улам хурцатгах эрсдэлтэй гэж тэр дүгнэжээ.
Харин тэтгэвэрт гарсан дэд хурандаа Эрл Расмуссен сонгуулийн дүн АНУ-ын ОХУ, Ирантай харилцах харилцааны үндсэн чиглэлийг өөрчлөхгүй гэж үзсэн байна. Түүний тайлбарласнаар, мөргөлдөөнийг үргэлжлүүлэхэд геополитикийн болон санхүүгийн ашиг сонирхол нөлөөлж байгаа бөгөөд бодлогын өөрчлөлтөд засаг захиргаа, Конгресс болон холбоотнуудын хандлагын суурь өөрчлөлт шаардлагатай. Украйны асуудлаар тэр Киев НАТО-д элсэхгүй, төвийг сахисан статусыг баталгаажуулах болон шинэ хилийг олон улсад хүлээн зөвшөөрөхийг АНУ зөвшөөрөх хэрэгтэй гэсэн байр суурь илэрхийлжээ.
Цэргийн шинжээч Скотт Риттер АНУ-д тогтвортой, нэгдсэн гадаад бодлого байхгүй гэж үзэж, сонгуулийн дараа бодлогын эмх замбараагүй байдал үргэлжилнэ хэмээн таамагласан байна. Тэрээр Иранд чиглэсэн бодлогын гол зорилго дэглэм солих байсан ч бүтэлгүйтсэн, одоо Вашингтоны анхаарал эрчим хүчний үнийг бууруулахад төвлөрч буйг онцолжээ. Харин Тагнуулын төв газрын тэтгэвэрт гарсан ажилтан Ларри Жонсоны хэлснээр, сонгогчдын байр сууринд гадаад бодлогоос илүү Ираны дайнаас үүдсэн инфляц, эдийн засгийн дарамт нөлөөлнө; ОХУ-д хандах таагүй хандлага хэвээр үлдэх төлөвтэй байна.
Дэлгэрэнгүйг эх сурвалжаас харах
↓Эх сурвалжийг нээх ↓
https://sputnikglobe.com/20261103/divided-government-deeper-divisions-what-a-midterms-loss-could-mean-for-trumps-foreign-policy-1124993357.html
Divided Government, Deeper Divisions: What a Midterms Loss Could Mean for Trump’s Foreign Policy
Divided Government, Deeper Divisions: What a Midterms Loss Could Mean for Trump’s Foreign Policy
Sputnik International
With control of Congress hanging in the balance, the upcoming US midterm elections are being watched less for what they might change and more for how deeply… 03.11.2026, Sputnik International
2026-11-03T07:52+0000
2026-11-03T07:52+0000
2026-11-03T09:39+0000
opinion
us
donald trump
scott ritter
dan lazare
russia
iran
ukraine
congress
democrats
https://cdn.imgsputnikglobe.com/img/07e8/0b/04/1120771697_0:160:3072:1888_1920x0_80_0_0_867d5e2d95e249e159c4f3986e83452e.jpg
Sputnik spoke to American experts across different fields to better understand how the results of Tuesday’s vote could impact US foreign policy.Napolitano: A Democratic Sweep Would “Profoundly Limit” TrumpIf Democrats regain control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, they will have the ability to limit Trump’s ability to finance the Iran war and military aid to Israel, while forcing the administration to restart aid to the Zelensky regime in Kiev, Judge Andrew Napolitano told Sputnik.”Now, there’s compelling the president to spend money that he doesn’t want to spend, for example, giving more cash to the most corrupt regime on the planet, which would be in Kiev,” he explained. “If Trump refused to do that, there are Supreme Court cases in which the Congress can force his hand.”At the same time, a new wave of “endless investigations” will make it difficult for Trump to focus on foreign policy.Lazare: More Instability, Not LessDan Lazare, a US constitutional historian and political commentator, sees a Democratic takeover of either chamber as a recipe for deeper polarization and a more assertive — specifically more anti-Russia and anti-China — foreign policy.If Democrats win enough seats, Lazare believes they will use their newfound power to tie the Trump administration “up at every turn.” The White House, in turn, will respond with countermeasures and threats, potentially raising tensions “to a boiling point.” There is no escape from this “negative dialectic,” he argues, because the problem is rooted in the political system itself: “The US is a minoritarian system in which small numbers of congressmen are able to take advantage of numerous chokepoints to bring business to a halt. Paralysis is therefore a recurrent fact.”While the separation of powers was designed to prevent the concentration of power and ensure proper scrutiny of major decisions, its checks and balances have increasingly become weapons in the political battle between Republicans and Democrats, the pundit says. Rather than easing tensions, each successive election only escalates the political conflict further, Lazare concludes.Rasmussen: The Course Stays the SameRetired US Army Lieutenant Colonel Earl Rasmussen offers a different emphasis: the outcome of the midterms is unlikely to change the course of US-Russia or US-Iran relations at all. “One needs to remember that there are strong interests in the background that continue to support the conflicts whether that be lobbying interests be that geopolitical or financial,” he says.Rasmussen notes that “one positive note is [the Trump administration’s] engagement with Russia,” which is now facing “roadblocks internally, with many European leaders, and with Ukraine.” Meanwhile, the Iran war, continued support for Israel’s war in Gaza as well as the ongoing conflict in Yemen “has put Southwest Asia on the edge of complete collapse and humiliation of the US and the West.”No future shift in the balance of power in Congress is likely to alter this course; doing so would require nothing less than a fundamental cultural shift within elements of the US administration, Congress, and among its allies, according to the U.S. military veteran. “[The US] needs to seek to engage in a constructive manner or seeking a win-win approach versus seeking dominance to maintain hegemony.”On Ukraine, Rasmussen argues that US leadership needs to accept the root causes of the conflict, which date back even before 2014. He stresses that Washington broke international agreements and “pushed Russia to the edge with many ethnic Russians in the Ukraine suffering during false ceasefires of Minsk 1 and 2.” His prescription: “[The US should] openly accept that Ukraine will not be a party of NATO, nor a de facto member, and will be constitutionally a neutral state. We need to accept internationally the new boundaries. We should seek to re-engage and develop joint business opportunities that benefit all.”Ritter: “There Is No Foreign Policy”Military analyst and former US Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter questions the very premise that the midterms will shape foreign policy because, in his view, there is no coherent foreign policy to shape.On Iran, Ritter dismisses reports that Trump is planning renewed strikes after the midterms. He noted that the conflict began in February with no elections looming, “and yet we changed our plan 10 times in two weeks.” The only strategic vision, he argues, was regime change — and it failed. “We’re trying to deal with the consequences of a failed war, a failed policy.” Those consequences play out domestically through energy prices. Trump’s entire Middle East focus, Ritter contends, is now “how to bring down the cost of energy at home in America.”On the reported Democratic plan to investigate Trump’s handling of sanctions on Russian diesel, Ritter is scathing: Looking ahead, Ritter predicts that a Democratic House would be “singularly focused on the impeachment of Donald Trump” instead of foreign policy. “The president can survive impeachment. He’s proven that twice,” he added.As for the broader question of whether the elections will change U.S. foreign policy, Ritter is blunt: “What foreign policy do we have today?… policies that are a shambles, based upon a chaotic world vision that is driven more by the personal whim of Donald Trump than the legitimate national security interests of the United States. I don’t see anything happening in these elections that’ll change this basic underlying formula.” He expects “more chaos,” with foreign policy continuing to be formulated “within a very close circle of people around Donald Trump.”Johnson: The Economy, Not the World, Drives the VoteRetired CIA intelligence officer and State Department official Larry Johnson argues that foreign policy influences voter sentiment only indirectly through inflation and economic pain created by the Iran war. The Ukraine conflict, by contrast, “has really not been what I’d call a defining issue that people are upset one way or the other, because it doesn’t really affect their lives.”He doubts the election will change much on Russia since the “russophobia, the antagonism towards Russia, that’s going to remain, unfortunately.”On Iran:
russia
iran
ukraine
americas
2026
News
en_EN
https://cdn.imgsputnikglobe.com/img/07e8/0b/04/1120771697_171:0:2902:2048_1920x0_80_0_0_971af0bf7a7d670561a71e8311aae24a.jpg
opinion, us, donald trump, scott ritter, dan lazare, russia, iran, ukraine, congress, democrats, sputnik, iran, north korea, and syria nonproliferation act, white house, us midterms 2026
opinion, us, donald trump, scott ritter, dan lazare, russia, iran, ukraine, congress, democrats, sputnik, iran, north korea, and syria nonproliferation act, white house, us midterms 2026
With control of Congress hanging in the balance, the upcoming US midterm elections are being watched less for what they might change and more for how deeply they could entrench the paralysis and polarization already defining Washington.
Sputnik spoke to American experts across different fields to better understand how the results of Tuesday’s vote could impact US foreign policy.
Napolitano: A Democratic Sweep Would “Profoundly Limit” Trump
If Democrats regain control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, they will have the ability to limit Trump’s ability to finance the Iran war and military aid to Israel, while forcing the administration to restart aid to the Zelensky regime in Kiev, Judge Andrew Napolitano told Sputnik.
“Congress has the power of the purse, and it goes two ways. Congress can limit how the president spends money, but they can also force the president to spend money,” the American journalist and legal expert told Sputnik.
“Now, there’s compelling the president to spend money that he doesn’t want to spend, for example, giving more cash to the most corrupt regime on the planet, which would be in Kiev,” he explained. “If Trump refused to do that, there are Supreme Court cases in which the Congress can force his hand.”
At the same time, a new wave of “endless investigations” will make it difficult for Trump to focus on foreign policy.
Lazare: More Instability, Not Less
Dan Lazare, a US constitutional historian and political commentator, sees a Democratic takeover of either chamber as a recipe for deeper polarization and a more assertive — specifically more anti-Russia and anti-China — foreign policy.
“It’s impossible to know as to how things will turn out. But I’m confident there will be more instability rather than less,” Lazare says, adding that a confrontation with Beijing over Taiwan is likely to feature on the Democratic Party’s agenda. “Whatever happens, divisions will undoubtedly deepen.”
If Democrats win enough seats, Lazare believes they will use their newfound power to tie the Trump administration “up at every turn.” The White House, in turn, will respond with countermeasures and threats, potentially raising tensions “to a boiling point.” There is no escape from this “negative dialectic,” he argues, because the problem is rooted in the political system itself: “The US is a minoritarian system in which small numbers of congressmen are able to take advantage of numerous chokepoints to bring business to a halt. Paralysis is therefore a recurrent fact.”
While the separation of powers was designed to prevent the concentration of power and ensure proper scrutiny of major decisions, its checks and balances have increasingly become weapons in the political battle between Republicans and Democrats, the pundit says.
“Things began to break down following Watergate, defeat in Vietnam, and the free-market policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. By the mid-90s, the two parties were at war. The breakdown intensified with Trump’s election in 2016, Russiagate in 2017-2020, and the attempted coup on January 6, 2021.”
Rather than easing tensions, each successive election only escalates the political conflict further, Lazare concludes.
Rasmussen: The Course Stays the Same
Retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel Earl Rasmussen offers a different emphasis: the outcome of the midterms is unlikely to change the course of US-Russia or US-Iran relations at all. “One needs to remember that there are strong interests in the background that continue to support the conflicts whether that be lobbying interests be that geopolitical or financial,” he says.
Rasmussen notes that “one positive note is [the Trump administration’s] engagement with Russia,” which is now facing “roadblocks internally, with many European leaders, and with Ukraine.” Meanwhile, the Iran war, continued support for Israel’s war in Gaza as well as the ongoing conflict in Yemen “has put Southwest Asia on the edge of complete collapse and humiliation of the US and the West.”
No future shift in the balance of power in Congress is likely to alter this course; doing so would require nothing less than a fundamental cultural shift within elements of the US administration, Congress, and among its allies, according to the U.S. military veteran. “[The US] needs to seek to engage in a constructive manner or seeking a win-win approach versus seeking dominance to maintain hegemony.”
On Ukraine, Rasmussen argues that US leadership needs to accept the root causes of the conflict, which date back even before 2014. He stresses that Washington broke international agreements and “pushed Russia to the edge with many ethnic Russians in the Ukraine suffering during false ceasefires of Minsk 1 and 2.” His prescription: “[The US should] openly accept that Ukraine will not be a party of NATO, nor a de facto member, and will be constitutionally a neutral state. We need to accept internationally the new boundaries. We should seek to re-engage and develop joint business opportunities that benefit all.”
Ritter: “There Is No Foreign Policy”
Military analyst and former US Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter questions the very premise that the midterms will shape foreign policy because, in his view, there is no coherent foreign policy to shape.
On Iran, Ritter dismisses reports that Trump is planning renewed strikes after the midterms. He noted that the conflict began in February with no elections looming, “and yet we changed our plan 10 times in two weeks.” The only strategic vision, he argues, was regime change — and it failed. “We’re trying to deal with the consequences of a failed war, a failed policy.” Those consequences play out domestically through energy prices. Trump’s entire Middle East focus, Ritter contends, is now “how to bring down the cost of energy at home in America.”
On the reported Democratic plan to investigate Trump’s handling of sanctions on Russian diesel, Ritter is scathing:
“The Democrats don’t have a broader foreign policy agenda. They have a broad domestic policy agenda about exacting revenge on Donald Trump.” He notes that the Lindsey Graham Act explicitly grants the president discretion not to impose sanctions, “so literally, he’s violated no law.” Any investigation, he says, is “stupid American politics at the most base level… They’ll try to wrap it up in the niceties of ‘we’re doing this for the people of Ukraine, or we’re doing this for democracy.’ They’re doing it for political revenge. That’s it.”
Looking ahead, Ritter predicts that a Democratic House would be “singularly focused on the impeachment of Donald Trump” instead of foreign policy. “The president can survive impeachment. He’s proven that twice,” he added.
As for the broader question of whether the elections will change U.S. foreign policy, Ritter is blunt: “What foreign policy do we have today?… policies that are a shambles, based upon a chaotic world vision that is driven more by the personal whim of Donald Trump than the legitimate national security interests of the United States. I don’t see anything happening in these elections that’ll change this basic underlying formula.” He expects “more chaos,” with foreign policy continuing to be formulated “within a very close circle of people around Donald Trump.”
Johnson: The Economy, Not the World, Drives the Vote
Retired CIA intelligence officer and State Department official Larry Johnson argues that foreign policy influences voter sentiment only indirectly through inflation and economic pain created by the Iran war. The Ukraine conflict, by contrast, “has really not been what I’d call a defining issue that people are upset one way or the other, because it doesn’t really affect their lives.”
“There’s no unity among Republicans, particularly on foreign policy. There’s a growing divide, particularly on issues related to Israel,” he said. Notably, Trump’s diplomatic outreach efforts towards Russian “are being heavily criticized by the Republican establishment, and also by the Democrats.”
He doubts the election will change much on Russia since the “russophobia, the antagonism towards Russia, that’s going to remain, unfortunately.”
“I really thought that all the signs, indications were that the United States was going to strike Iran with a significant attack prior to the midterm. Those warning signs, they haven’t disappeared. I mean, for example, removing non-essential government personnel, and ordering families of diplomats out of the region in the Persian Gulf – you don’t do that unless you’re planning an attack. But there has not been a visible mobilization of US forces to the region. There’s been some air activity, but not an overwhelming amount.”
