Ordinary Iranians see the Democratic midterm sweep as a green light for the regime's aggression — and the mullahs in Tehran agree with them, for once.
Iran's parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, was among the first regime officials to celebrate the results, posting on X that Americans had said "No To War" and warning Washington not to disregard the electorate. The regime is presenting the Democratic victory as a rejection of Trump's pressure campaign. But inside Iran, the people actually living under the Islamic Republic tell a different story. According to people of varied backgrounds who spoke to The Algemeiner from inside the country, the reaction among ordinary Iranians is disappointment — and fear that a Democratic-controlled Congress will weaken Washington's willingness to confront Tehran.
Some Iranians had hoped Trump would bring an end to the Islamic Republic. Others simply wanted American pressure maintained. Either way, the Democratic sweep reads to them as the opposite of liberation. HotAir, relaying the Algemeiner reporting, framed the divide as a contrast between the regime's interpretation and public opinion over what kind of American policy could bring change. The Daily Caller didn't cover the Iran angle. What neither outlet asked is the question that matters most to Americans: what is the U.S. interest here, and what does it cost?
The answer from the Washington class is always the same: more spending, more surveillance, more commitments with no exit. Case in point: while Democrats prepare to take control of Congress and posture about checking executive power, the revolving door is already spinning. Palantir — the surveillance tech giant sitting on $2.3 billion in taxpayer-funded contracts — just hired former Democratic Sen. Jon Tester as an adviser, according to The Daily Caller. Tester spent 18 years in the Senate opposing the USA Patriot Act as government surveillance powers expanded. Now he's advising the company that Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden has accused of facilitating the "abuse of government data." Tester told NPR the arrangement is "advisory in nature" and "not lobbying." Palantir, for its part, rejects claims it surveils the public and says it believes in "protecting privacy and upholding liberal democratic values." More than a dozen former employees disagreed, criticizing Palantir's $30 million ICE contract in a May letter over a surveillance tool designed to monitor migrant activity.
Wyden's office has threatened compulsory processes if Palantir isn't responsive next year. Whether that scrutiny materializes under a Democratic-controlled Congress remains to be seen. The pattern is familiar: the same people who rail against government overreach end up working for the companies that build the tools of overreach. The same party that claims to stand for freedom abroad soft-pedals the pressure that might actually deliver it.
The America-first case against intervention isn't just about saving American lives and treasure — it's about not destroying theirs either. But the alternative isn't the hands-off approach the regime is banking on. The question is whether Washington can find a policy that pressures the mullahs without writing another blank check or building another surveillance apparatus that ends up pointed inward. So far, nobody in either party has offered one.
