What Is Happening in the United States?

By Ramadan Ahmed
While the world’s attention is focused on the American-Israeli war against Iran, Israel’s continuing military operations in Lebanon and Syria, the Russia–Ukraine war, and a succession of other international crises, the United States itself is undergoing a profound internal transformation that could prove to be one of the most consequential developments for the future of the international order over the coming decades.
Although this transformation has received far less attention than ongoing global conflicts, it carries potentially far-reaching strategic implications.
This article examines the principal features of this domestic transformation and explores its possible impact on international affairs in the years ahead.
The Background: From “America First” to an Unexpected Confrontation
President Trump won the presidential election under the banner of “America First”, a slogan that resonated strongly with the Christian conservative movement and a large segment of Americans who had become increasingly disillusioned with the political establishment. Many believed that successive administrations had prioritised Israel’s interests over those of the American people.
Trump’s popularity was further strengthened by his promise to avoid entering new wars, reflecting a significant shift in public opinion after years of costly foreign interventions that many Americans believe damaged both the economy and living standards.
However, Trump’s decision to enter into a military alliance with Israel against Iran came as a surprise to much of the American public, triggering an unprecedented political and media upheaval. According to this interpretation, more than ninety per cent of American media outlets turned against the President, producing an extraordinary moment in which some commentators appeared openly sympathetic towards Iran.
The following developments illustrate the scale of this transformation.
First: Analysts Question the Value of the War
From the outset, a number of prominent American analysts argued that neither the United States nor Israel was in a position to achieve a decisive victory over Iran.
These assessments fuelled growing public anxiety, particularly as the conflict contributed to rising prices, increased living costs, and a decline in the purchasing power of America’s middle class.
Second: Leading Conservative Media Figures Turn Against Trump
The American media landscape witnessed a remarkable shift as several of the most prominent conservative commentators—including Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and Megyn Kelly—launched sustained criticism of President Trump despite having previously been among his strongest supporters.
Third: A Retreat from Anti-Islamic Rhetoric
Many of these same media personalities, who for years had been associated with strongly critical portrayals of Islam and Muslims, subsequently claimed that earlier media narratives had misled them themselves.
Following the war, they became some of Israel’s most vocal critics, accusing it of engaging in what they described as manipulation and conspiracies against the United States.
Fourth: Criticism of Israel Becomes an Electoral Asset
For decades, strong support for Israel was widely regarded as an essential political requirement for electoral success at virtually every level of American politics.
According to this interpretation, that political reality has now begun to reverse.
Public criticism of Israeli policies is increasingly viewed as an electoral advantage, as illustrated by Mamdani’s victory in the New York mayoral election and by Democratic gains in several midterm elections, with candidates adopting more critical positions towards Israel.
The Most Significant Shift: Challenging the Doctrine of “Israel First”
Perhaps the clearest indication of this broader transformation came when US Vice President JD Vance declared that “America’s interests come before Israel’s interests.”
The statement was reportedly made in response to Israel’s insistence that any agreement with Iran did not bind it and that it would continue military operations in Lebanon.
With those words, Vance appeared to challenge one of the central assumptions that has shaped American foreign policy for decades: the notion that Israeli interests should consistently take precedence over broader American national interests.
Conclusion: A Strategic Shift in Public and Official Attitudes
The American-Israeli war against Iran appears to have become a major turning point in American political opinion, placing the pro-Israel lobby under growing pressure.
Long-standing negative narratives about Arabs and Muslims that had dominated much of American media for decades have increasingly come under scrutiny, while public debate has expanded over the wisdom of continuing extensive American financial support for Israel.
Perhaps even more striking has been the growing willingness of American media organisations to discuss, on an unprecedented scale, the situation of the Palestinians and Israel’s military actions against neighbouring countries—subjects that until recently received far less critical attention.
There is little doubt that these developments within American domestic politics could carry significant long-term implications, particularly if they eventually lead to substantial changes in United States foreign policy.
Although any decline in American global influence may introduce new risks, it could also create opportunities for emerging powers to contribute to a more balanced international order, reducing the concentration of global decision-making within a single dominant power.
A reduction in American hegemony need not produce a vacuum. In a broader sense, it could allow greater recognition of the popular will in societies whose political choices have often been overshadowed by external influence.
Under such circumstances, electorates may be better able to express their genuine political preferences through democratic elections rather than having political, military, or family elites aligned primarily with Western interests imposed on them.
Such a transformation could contribute to:
genuine political stability founded upon popular legitimacy rather than elite bargaining;
stronger institutions governed by the rule of law, where sovereignty ultimately rests with the people rather than with external influence; and
the correction of political trajectories in countries that have experienced coups, externally imposed political arrangements, or systems of government that failed to reflect their social realities and national aspirations.
If the American transformation continues in a measured and responsible manner, it may represent a historic turning point—one that restores the voice of ordinary people, strengthens the independence of national decision-making, and contributes to a more balanced international system based upon mutual respect rather than domination and dependency.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=15568