Trump’s Defeat: The American People’s Victory Over War, Racism, and the Power of Billionaires
The results of the November 4, 2026, midterm elections in the United States cannot be viewed merely as an electoral victory for the Democratic Party and a defeat for the Republicans. In my view, what happened in these elections signals a deeper transformation in American society—a transformation rooted in growing public opposition to war, aggressive foreign policies, the genocide in Palestine, racism, Islamophobia, the cost-of-living crisis, and the unprecedented expansion of billionaires’ influence over the American political system.
The Democrats’ victory in the House of Representatives was largely predictable, but their victory in the Senate, particularly given the composition of the seats being contested, was a far more significant development. Nevertheless, the historical importance of these elections lies not simply in a shift in the balance of power in Congress. The United States has previously experienced periods when Democrats controlled both chambers, including at the beginning of Barack Obama’s presidency.
What makes these elections different is the political and social character of some of the winning candidates, the growing influence of progressive forces and democratic socialists, and the defeat of politicians who entered electoral contests with extensive financial backing from billionaires and powerful lobbying organizations.
These elections demonstrated that money, media power, and organized political advertising, despite their continuing importance in the American political system, cannot necessarily determine the will of the people.
The Defeat of Islamophobia and the Victory of a New Generation
One of the most important and symbolic developments in these elections was the victory of Abdul El-Sayed in the state of Michigan. A Muslim politician, physician, and progressive figure, El-Sayed has made opposition to war, the genocide in Gaza, and unconditional American support for Netanyahu’s government central elements of his political identity.
The significance of this victory must be understood within the historical and social context of the United States.
In a country where Islamophobia has served as an important instrument for mobilizing right-wing political forces for more than two decades, particularly since the events of September 11, 2001, the victory of a Muslim candidate who openly criticizes Israeli policies carries meaning far beyond an ordinary electoral success.
During these elections, El-Sayed’s opponents attempted to mobilize voters against him by emphasizing his religious identity, accusing him of supporting Hamas, and launching extensive advertising campaigns. Financial support from wealthy individuals and circles close to the pro-Israel lobby also failed to prevent his victory.
In my view, this victory represents a political and moral defeat for those who believed they could continue manipulating election results by stirring anti-Muslim sentiment and creating fear of Muslims.
American society, particularly its younger generation, is no longer the same society it was twenty or thirty years ago.
A generation that has witnessed images of Palestinian children being killed, the destruction of Gaza, and the suffering of millions of people directly and daily through social media has become increasingly skeptical of traditional propaganda and official narratives.
This change is also evident in student movements, campus protests, and the extensive activities of young people who, despite threats of expulsion from universities, loss of employment opportunities, and political pressure, have refused to abandon their opposition to genocide and war.
This cultural and political transformation is one of the most important factors underlying the recent election results.
Democratic Socialists and the Return of the Working-Class Question
Another important feature of these elections was the significant success of candidates affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in electoral contests at various levels.
This movement should not be regarded simply as the left wing of the Democratic Party. Although the Democratic Socialists of America frequently use the organizational and electoral structures of the Democratic Party, they maintain an independent political and social identity.
A substantial part of this movement believes that, over recent decades, America’s two major political parties have gradually distanced themselves from the interests of the majority of the population and increasingly become representatives of large corporations, financial institutions, and wealthy capitalists.
The Democratic Party, which once claimed to represent workers, labor unions, and low-income communities, began pursuing a different course, particularly during Bill Clinton’s presidency.
Neoliberal economic policies, the globalization of capital, the growing influence of Wall Street, and the increasingly close relationships between Democratic leaders, major technology corporations, and financial institutions weakened the party’s historical ties to the working class.
This transformation was not limited to the United States. During the same period, many European social democratic parties also moved away from their traditional commitment to defending workers and working people, increasingly embracing free-market economic policies and accommodating the interests of big capital.
The emergence and expansion of the Democratic Socialists of America should be understood as a response to this historical development.
The movement seeks to place the demands of the working class, labor unions, working people, young people, and disadvantaged communities once again at the center of American politics.
At the same time, opposition to war, defense of immigrants’ rights, the struggle against racism, and support for the rights of the Palestinian people constitute essential elements of its political identity.
I am myself a member of this organization and am closely familiar with its activities. For this reason, I do not view the electoral successes of candidates associated with this movement merely as an increase in the number of elected representatives. Rather, I regard them as evidence of the expanding social base of progressive ideas in American society.
Nevertheless, these achievements should not be interpreted as signaling the immediate arrival of socialism in the United States.
American society still faces enormous political, economic, cultural, and institutional obstacles. The two-party electoral system, the power of capital, the influence of major media corporations, and the country’s long historical tradition of anti-socialism remain serious barriers to the formation of an independent nationwide political force.
What matters, however, is that for the first time in recent years, we are witnessing the growth of a generation of politicians and social activists who openly advocate democratic socialism and are also achieving electoral victories.
War, Genocide, and the Moral Failure of American Foreign Policy
To understand the results of these elections, particular attention must be paid to the role of American foreign policy, especially support for Israel and the war against Iran.
One of the principal reasons for the dissatisfaction of a significant portion of Democratic voters with Joe Biden’s administration was its extensive and virtually unconditional support for Israel’s military operations in Gaza.
Biden had even openly identified himself as a Zionist. His administration’s political and military support for Israel, while images of Palestinian civilians being killed were widely circulated, provoked intense protests across American society.
These protests were not limited to political activists or university students. A number of American government employees and officials also resigned from their positions in protest against these policies.
A significant proportion of young people and progressive voters who had previously supported the Democrats distanced themselves from the Biden administration because of these policies.
Trump managed to mobilize some of this public dissatisfaction in his favor by promising to end wars, reduce foreign expenditures, and prioritize the interests of the American people.
Yet what happened in practice was precisely the opposite of those promises.
The Trump administration not only failed to change its policy of supporting Israel but also expanded military confrontations and entered into war with Iran, drawing the United States into a crisis whose economic, political, and human costs directly affected the lives of Americans.
For this reason, I believe opposition to war and to American support for Israel must be considered among the principal factors behind the Republicans’ defeat in the recent elections.
Importantly, this opposition is no longer confined to the left and progressive movements.
Among conservatives, and even within sections of the “America First” movement, a serious question has emerged: Why should America’s financial and military resources be spent on wars that have no direct connection to improving the lives of its own people?
This simultaneous dissatisfaction among segments of both the American left and right is a highly significant phenomenon, even though the motivations and objectives of these two political currents are not necessarily the same.
The War with Iran and Its Direct Impact on American Lives
One of the fundamental mistakes in analyzing American society is to assume that Americans are indifferent to foreign policy and concerned only with domestic issues.
The reality is more complicated.
A large segment of American society may pay relatively little attention to developments in the Middle East under ordinary circumstances. However, when war directly affects gasoline prices, food costs, transportation, and everyday living expenses, foreign policy becomes an entirely domestic issue.
The war with Iran provides a clear example of this connection.
Developments in the Persian Gulf and disruptions to energy transportation placed considerable pressure on global oil and petroleum-product markets. Rising fuel prices quickly affected transportation costs, agricultural production, the distribution of goods, and food prices.
For an American farmer, war is no longer a distant issue when the cost of fuel for tractors, chemical fertilizers, and transporting agricultural products rises sharply.
For a truck driver or taxi driver, war becomes a personal concern when a growing portion of daily income must be spent on fuel.
For a working-class family, rising prices for meat, bread, groceries, and other essential goods are direct consequences of the economic crisis generated by war.
This helps explain why dissatisfaction with Trump’s policies was not confined to major cities and university communities but also spread to rural areas and states traditionally considered Republican strongholds.
In my view, one of the important aspects of Iran’s strategy during this war was that it did not confine the confrontation to the military battlefield. Instead, the economic consequences of the conflict also spread to global markets.
Regardless of one’s assessment of the military dimensions of the war, its economic impact on American domestic politics cannot be ignored.
Of course, this factor should not be regarded as the sole explanation for Trump’s defeat.
Protests against the genocide in Gaza, opposition to immigration policies, dissatisfaction with economic corruption, and the cost-of-living crisis all contributed to this electoral transformation.
Corruption, Wealth Accumulation, and the Rule of Billionaires
One of the defining characteristics of the Trump era has been the unprecedented expansion of the relationship between political power and personal and family economic interests.
Trump came to power claiming to defend ordinary Americans and fight corrupt political elites, even as he and those close to him maintained connections to numerous commercial, financial, and investment activities.
In my view, what we witnessed during this period went beyond conventional political corruption.
The boundaries separating the public interest, government authority, and the private interests of the president and his associates became increasingly blurred.
Business activities connected to the Trump family, financial transactions, cryptocurrency markets, and the relationship between political decisions and the interests of major investors have raised serious questions about transparency, conflicts of interest, and legal oversight.
During the same period, deregulation in the fields of energy, environmental protection, financial markets, and emerging technologies created extensive opportunities for major corporations.
Trump’s famous slogan, “Drill, baby, drill,” reflected an approach that placed the interests of oil companies above many environmental and social considerations.
In artificial intelligence and massive data centers, deregulation policies likewise benefited companies possessing enormous financial resources and economic power.
Meanwhile, increased military spending and the expansion of wars created extensive markets for major arms manufacturers.
Thus, three major sectors of American big capital—the oil and energy industries, technology and artificial intelligence corporations, and the arms industry—benefited from the policies of the Trump administration.
Alongside these interests, the political and financial support of powerful pro-Israel circles also played an important role in strengthening his administration.
The central contradiction was that while workers, nurses, drivers, farmers, and low-income families faced rising living expenses, the owners of vast concentrations of capital found new opportunities to increase their wealth.
This widening gap between wealth and poverty was one of the most important sources of public dissatisfaction.
The Defeat of Money and Oligarchic Power at the Ballot Box
The role of billionaires such as Elon Musk in American elections provides a clear example of the influence of big capital over politics.
In recent years, wealthy capitalists have sought to influence the composition of elected institutions and government policies through campaign contributions, political action committees, media organizations, and social networks.
However, the results of the recent elections demonstrated that even enormous financial investments cannot guarantee victory for the candidates they support.
The significance of this development became particularly evident in states such as Texas, where major investors have direct economic interests in addition to their political objectives.
Elon Musk and other owners of enormous fortunes are not merely interested in supporting a particular political party or candidate. They seek a favorable political and legal environment in which their business activities can expand with as few restrictions as possible.
Environmental regulations, workers’ rights, taxation, the construction of data centers, and access to energy resources are all closely connected to the economic interests of these corporations.
Nevertheless, voters in many electoral districts demonstrated that they were unwilling to cast their ballots simply according to the preferences and investments of billionaires.
This is one of the most important lessons of the recent American elections.
Money possesses enormous power within the American political system, but that power is not unlimited.
When social dissatisfaction grows and people experience the consequences of economic and military policies in their daily lives, even the wealthiest capitalists can be defeated by the will of the voters.
Anti-Immigrant Policies and Changing Voter Behavior
Another important factor in the Republicans’ defeat was the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
During the previous presidential election, a portion of Latino voters, particularly those with conservative religious and social views, supported Trump.
However, harsh immigration policies, extensive operations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the atmosphere of fear and insecurity created among immigrants generated widespread dissatisfaction.
This fear was not confined to undocumented immigrants.
Many immigrant families, including people who have lived in the United States for years or have become American citizens, are concerned about the conduct of immigration enforcement officers and the possibility of discriminatory treatment.
This atmosphere has created a sense of insecurity not only among Latinos but also among Iranians, Asian Americans, and other immigrant communities.
As a result, some of the voters whose continued support Republicans believed they could count on distanced themselves from the administration’s policies.
This development demonstrates that exploiting anti-immigrant sentiment and stirring racial hostility, although potentially effective in mobilizing certain voters in the short term, can generate a widespread social backlash against those responsible in the longer term.
The Future of the Democratic Party and the Contradiction Between Big Capital and Progressive Forces
The Democrats’ victory does not necessarily mean that the internal contradictions of the party have been resolved.
On the contrary, I believe this victory may initiate a new phase of conflict among the Democratic Party’s different factions.
On one side, progressive forces, democratic socialists, and labor union activists want the party to return to defending the interests of workers and working people, challenging the power of big capital, and changing American foreign policy.
On the other side, a substantial part of the Democratic Party’s traditional establishment remains closely connected to Wall Street, major technology corporations, and powerful capitalists.
Many technology billionaires who moved closer to Trump in recent years were previously financial and political supporters of the Democratic Party.
It is possible that following Trump’s political defeat, some of these forces will once again move closer to the Democratic Party in order to protect their interests.
But their return could intensify the party’s internal contradictions.
Can a party that seeks to retain the support of workers, young people, and antiwar movements simultaneously represent the interests of giant technology corporations, financial capitalists, and major industries?
In my view, this question will become increasingly important in the years ahead.
Democratic socialists currently make use of the Democratic Party’s electoral structures. However, if the contradiction between their progressive programs and the interests of the party’s traditional factions intensifies, the question of establishing an independent political force, or even a third party, will once again be raised more seriously.
The experience of the Green Party and candidates such as Ralph Nader has demonstrated that creating a third party in the United States faces enormous obstacles.
Nevertheless, the social and electoral growth of democratic socialist forces has created new circumstances that cannot simply be equated with past experiences.
The Responsibility of Iranians in the Face of War and American Politics
The results of these elections also carry political and moral significance for Iranians, particularly those living in the United States.
In recent years, some forces opposed to the Islamic Republic, instead of opposing war and defending the lives and security of the Iranian people, have openly or implicitly supported the intensification of foreign military pressure against Iran.
Some of these forces have continued to endorse the Trump administration’s warmongering policies even when war has caused deaths, destroyed infrastructure, and increased the suffering of the Iranian people.
In my view, opposition to the Iranian government, however serious or fundamental, cannot justify supporting military aggression against the country or the killing of its people.
Defending Iran’s independence and territorial integrity, opposing war, and protecting the people’s right to life are principles that must not be sacrificed to political or ideological differences.
Iranians living in the United States, particularly those who have the right to vote, can and should use the available political and civic opportunities to oppose war and support peace.
The recent elections demonstrated that, contrary to the assumptions of certain warmongering forces, American society is not united in support of its government’s aggressive policies.
A significant portion of the American population—from young people and university students to workers, labor unions, and even some conservatives—opposes war and the costs associated with it.
This reality should provide hope to Iranian forces committed to peace.
Conclusion: The Beginning of a Transformation, Not the End of the Struggle
The results of the American midterm elections should not be interpreted as the end of the Trump era, the collapse of the Republican Party, or the immediate emergence of a new political order.
The structure of power in the United States remains dominated by a network of powerful political, economic, and financial institutions, and the influence of big capital over elections, media, and public policymaking remains extensive.
Nevertheless, what happened in these elections signals a shift in the balance of social forces within the country.
A new generation of voters has entered the political arena—a generation increasingly sensitive to war, racism, Islamophobia, economic inequality, and unconditional support for Israel.
Progressive forces and democratic socialists have succeeded in transforming part of this social dissatisfaction into organized political activity and electoral victories.
At the same time, Trump’s warmongering and economic policies have generated dissatisfaction even among segments of the Republicans’ traditional electoral base.
In my view, the most important message of these elections is that the American people, despite all the structural limitations of their political system, remain capable of resisting the power of capital, organized propaganda, racism, and warmongering.
Although this resistance is still in its early stages and will face numerous contradictions and difficulties, recent successes demonstrate that America’s political future need not remain confined to the recurring competition between two traditional factions of power.
If this trend is accompanied by grassroots organizing, stronger labor unions, expanding antiwar movements, and the active participation of progressive forces, it could lay the groundwork for a more lasting transformation in American politics.
The central message of the recent elections can be summarized in a single sentence:
The power of billionaires, warmongering propaganda, and politics based on hatred, however formidable they may be, cannot forever overcome the will of people struggling for peace, social justice, and a better life.
Reza Fani Yazdi
November 5, 2026