Four interconnected risks threaten Republican control of the U.S. Congress in November’s midterm elections. The vote will determine not only control of Congress but will also profoundly influence the future trajectory of American politics.

Two weeks into the U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran - launched on 28 February 2026 with the explicit aim of decapitating leadership, and ostensible objectives of degrading nuclear and missile capabilities, so as to trigger regime collapse - the conflict has instead evolved into a grinding quagmire. What Washington anticipated as a swift application of air superiority leading to internal disintegration has produced the opposite: a politically consolidated Iranian state, depleted U.S. and allied air-defence stocks, Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, and a cascading energy shock rippling across global markets.

Each has three core national objectives that are internally contradictory. Any two can be pursued simultaneously, but never all three. Until these triangles are broken, there will be no lasting peace in the Middle East—only the same fire burning in different forms.

The security foundation on which the GCC’s economic model was built has been seriously undermined. Unless these nations can forge a new, credible framework, it will be difficult to sustain the foreign investment and confidence that have fueled their growth.

The U.S.-Israel strike on Iran lacks a clear legal basis or credible justification and represents a high-risk gamble by the Trump administration. Despite early military success, the operation faces uncertain prospects, including limited chances of regime change and the risk of prolonged conflict.

The death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in U.S.-Israeli strikes has created leadership uncertainty in Tehran, weakened Iran’s regional network of allies, and accelerated shifts in Middle Eastern power dynamics. For China, the conflict threatens energy supplies and Belt and Road investments while potentially expanding Beijing’s diplomatic role if it maintains neutrality and engagement with all sides.

Critics of the attack on Iran by the United States and Israel point out that US President Donald Trump has no plan for what comes next. And they are not wrong: when Trump boasts that he can resolve wars in a single day, he merely exposes the limits of his attention span. But the real problem is not the shortness of Trump’s time horizon; it’s the narrowness of his threat perception.

Acquiring nuclear weapons would not only undermine the global nuclear non-proliferation framework but also deal a fundamental blow to the postwar international order—a prospect that must be met with deep concern and strong opposition from its allies and neighbors.

Negotiations on Ukraine’s peace plan reveal more than technical differences. They show a calculation by all parties related to the cost of war, the capacity to endure over time and the sequencing of strategic priorities.

The new way is not about dismantling anything. It simply rejects American hegemonic thinking and embraces the Oriental wisdom of consultation and co-governance. This approach, which transcends the American model, represents the future.