Americans have an excellent phrase to show their unity on foreign policy issues, no matter what their differences are inside the country. “Politics stops at the water’s edge” was coined by Republican Sen. Arthur H. Vandenberg, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in the middle of his negotiations, and cooperation, with the Democratic administration, and the State Department in particular, after the Second World War on the process of establishing NATO. This phrase seems to have been forgotten today by many Americans. America’s foreign policy is now seen as a reflection of who is in the White House and the two houses of Congress, not that of a United States of America. The divisions between the two political parties are so big, and the gap so wide, that a bipartisan foreign policy looks difficult to find today with very few exceptions. This has fueled expectations that a different foreign policy will be unfurled as soon as the Republicans win both houses of Congress. But this assumption forgets that foreign policy is the prerogative of the president. While Congress holds the purse on foreign policy, the buck stops at the White House where foreign policy is concerned. Still, people looked with angst at the November elections. Many both domestically and abroad feared that these elections would be a turning point. The eyes of the world were fixated on American voters to see which direction the US would veer: A continuity of the Biden administration’s foreign policy if the Democrats won, or a new policy led by a Republican opposition that promised to upend many of the president’s policies at home and abroad if it won. The Republicans, the pundits and the media predicted a red wave — a Republican tsunami as a result of the elections — but this did not come to pass. The Republican wave was only a ripple, as the American media described it. Today, two weeks after the elections, we see a different reality. The Democrats maintained control of the Senate by a slim margin — just one seat until the Georgia election runoff takes place in December — and the Republicans will control the House with a slim majority too. These results paint a picture of a similar America to the one that entered the elections, with only a slight difference. A country divided in the middle and a future of two years of “chaos and dysfunction,” as is predicted here. This means an era mired in gridlock in Congress and a challenge to President Joe Biden’s agenda at every turn of the road. The question that is being asked in Washington and around the world today is how will this impact American foreign policy? This means an era mired in gridlock in Congress and a challenge to President Joe Biden’s agenda at every turn of the road. Dr. Amal Mudallali The consensus in foreign policy circles is that the next two years will see more continuity in foreign policy. The Democrats’ unexpected win convinced them that what they have been doing is right and there is no need to change. President Biden said that much when he was asked what he would change after the elections. He said: “Nothing.” The slim winning margin for the Republicans in the House means no significant change will take place as far as foreign issues are concerned. But these elections will still have an impact on foreign policy, regardless of how each party fared in them. The first and most important result of these elections for America and its standing in the world is the message that US democracy is still alive and the “city on the hill” can continue preaching democratic values to the rest of the world. Had the election deniers won and a shadow of doubt was cast on the elections — especially if they had refused to accept its results — it would have been difficult for the US to remain the defender of democracy abroad when it could not safeguard it inside its borders. The other issue that will be impacted by the results of the election is Ukraine, although the effect will be smaller than it would have been had the Republicans won big. Although there is bipartisan support for Ukraine in Congress, there have been defections recently from both Republicans and Democrats questioning the amount of aid that Washington is sending to Kyiv without an endgame in sight. On the Republican side, the highest-profile suggestion that the US cannot continue the way it is pouring aid into Ukraine came from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who told a news outlet before the midterms that a Republican House majority would not support a “blank check” for Ukraine while Americans faced a recession. Other Republican members made similar predictions. They explained, however, that this does not mean they do not support Ukraine and sending military aid to help it against Russia, but that there needs to be oversight over the money that is being sent and more burden-sharing by European allies. The other sign that the Ukraine policy will be put under scrutiny came from the Democrats themselves, as the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the House last month sent a letter to Biden urging him to engage in direct talks with Russia and to prioritize diplomacy because “the alternative to diplomacy is protracted war, with its attendant uncertainties and catastrophic and unknowable risks.” The letter triggered uproar among Democrats, who saw the timing as harmful for their election prospects and because it sent the wrong message to Russian President Vladimir Putin about American support for Ukraine. The progressive Democrats quickly withdrew the letter and said it was released by mistake. The midterm elections propelled to Congress members who are skeptical of Ukraine aid, like Republican J.D. Vance, who won a Senate seat in Ohio and is expected to continue questioning the aid. In an interview with an ABC News affiliate in September, he said: “We’ve got to stop the money spigot to Ukraine eventually. We cannot fund a long-term military conflict that I think ultimately has diminishing returns for our own country.” Many of the other new Republican members of Congress share this sentiment. Aid to Ukraine will be one of the issues to watch as members from both the Republican and Democratic parties push for change, not in terms of support but in opening the debate about the aims of this aid and the endgame of the war in Ukraine. There is a bipartisan policy toward Moscow in Congress and it is focused on “constraining Russia,” as the new American National Security Strategy puts it. Both sides of the aisle support a tougher policy on the Russian government because they see it as pursuing “an imperialist foreign policy with the goal of overturning key elements of the international order.” Biden was clear in a speech after the elections that he wants to continue this policy, saying: “In the area of foreign policy, I hope we’ll continue this bipartisan approach of confronting Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.” The president also announced that he will invite leaders of both parties to discuss how they will work together in the next Congress. America’s China policy will continue to be focused on “outcompeting” Beijing and limiting its access to American technology, while keeping the lines of communication open between the two countries. Biden said after his meeting with President Xi Jinping at last week’s G20 Summit in Bali, Indonesia, that they share a responsibility to show that they “can manage our differences, prevent competition from becoming anything ever near conflict, and to find ways to work together on urgent global issues that require our mutual cooperation.” Taiwan will remain a thorn in the US-China relationship, especially as McCarthy vowed to visit the island if Republicans won a majority in the House, as former Speaker Nancy Pelosi did in August, angering the Chinese and raising tensions between the two countries. The president has repeated four times lately that the US would defend Taiwan if it were to be attacked by China. But the White House denied that this is America’s policy. The way the US, the Biden administration and Congress handle Taiwan going forward will decide the trajectory of the US-China relationship. American policy toward Iran and the talks to resume the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal will stay in the same gridlock they have been in, with no change in the US approach to the ongoing protests in Iran expected either. But the Republicans in Congress will highlight and may investigate the Iran-Russia relationship, especially Iran’s military aid to Russia during the Ukraine war. On Israel, the return of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to power with a coalition of right-wing extremists and religious leaders will be challenging to the relationship. The presence of these extremists in the new Israeli government will put the US administration in a difficult position in terms of deciding how to deal with them and the government. But the fundamentals of the Israeli-American relationship will not change. On North Korea, we will also see the same policy of trying to contain the North Korean leader and his missile launches with the help of allies and China. Climate change will be a contentious issue in Congress between the Democrats and the Republicans, especially those who describe Biden’s environmental policy as a “radical green agenda.” The Republicans had vowed before the midterms to stop the president’s agenda on climate change if they won control of Congress. Dr. Amal Mudallali is a consultant on global issues. She is a former Lebanese ambassador to the UN. Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point of view