Abdul El-Sayed defies $60 Million campaign against him, wins Michigan Democratic Senate Primary

Image
  By Dr. Pshtiwan Faraj | Kurdish Policy Analysis Despite massive spending by outside groups and high-profile endorsements for his opponent, Abdul El-Sayed secured a decisive Democratic Senate primary victory and now heads into a closely watched November showdown. Abdul El-Sayed has scored one of the most closely watched political upsets of the 2026 election cycle, defeating Representative Haley Stevens in Michigan's Democratic Senate primary despite facing more than $60 million in outside spending , much of it from pro-Israel political groups. The victory marks a significant breakthrough for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and sets up a high-stakes general election contest against Republican Mike Rogers in November. El-Sayed's campaign prevailed even after Stevens received late endorsements from Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and influential national Democrats, including Representative James Clyburn . Those endorsements failed to reverse momentum behind El-S...

Are wars today solving anything—or just making everything worse? modern conflicts may be endless, costly… and pointless.

     Prolonged conflicts may be entrenching instability rather than resolving it



Sulaimanyah, Iraq  — March 28 

Kurdish Policy Analysis

I question whether ongoing wars in the current geopolitical climate are achieving their stated aims, I argue that prolonged conflicts may be entrenching instability rather than resolving it.

In a recent essay published on Kurdish Policy Analysis I examine the broader consequences of modern warfare, suggesting that wars often evolve into protracted stalemates that inflict sustained destruction without delivering decisive political outcomes. Drawing on historical parallels, I note that stalemates can be among the most destructive phases of conflict, marked by continued bombardment, civilian suffering, and limited territorial change.

My commentary highlights a recurring dilemma in military strategy: even when initial objectives are met or early advances are made, conflicts can settle into long, grinding confrontations that test the endurance of societies and their international backers. I argue that such conditions risk normalizing violence while eroding political clarity about what “victory” actually means.

I further point to the ambiguity of war aims in many contemporary conflicts, where governments often articulate broad goals—such as defending order or weakening adversaries—without clearly defined end states. This lack of specificity, I suggest, complicates both military planning and public accountability.

This  also raises concerns about the unintended consequences of intervention, including escalation risks, economic strain, and the possibility that adversaries adapt and become more resilient over time. In some cases, I imply, external support may prolong conflicts rather than shorten them.

While I do not argue for disengagement outright, my analysis underscores the need for clearer strategic objectives and a more rigorous assessment of whether ongoing military actions are improving conditions on the ground or simply perpetuating cycles of violence.

My conclusion reflect a broader debate among policymakers and analysts over the effectiveness of modern warfare in achieving sustainable political outcomes, particularly in conflicts involving major powers or deeply entrenched regional dynamics.

#WarAnalysis #Geopolitics #GlobalConflict #MilitaryStrategy #WorldNews #UkraineWar #MiddleEast #PolicyDebate


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Lindsey Graham Passing Reshapes Republican Foreign Policy—and Raises Questions for the Kurds

Lindsey Graham's Death Leaves a Void in US-Kurdish Relations

Can the stateless Nation of Kurdistan help save the Global Order?