A New Era of the U.S.-U.K. Relationship: A View From the British Isles The U.S. midterm elections, however, could significantly impact its current political leadership and direction. This election may be the most critical for the British in decades. There are many reasons for the importance of this election for the U.S.-U.K. relationship. The British have no interest in alienating the incoming new Republican administration, but neither do they want to engage it without having a clear idea about its policies and its plans for the future. If there is a clear ideological break between Democrats and Republicans and the Republican Party is able to seize control of Congress, this could be devastating for the British because it is likely to mean that President Trump's policies would be more aligned with those of Prime Minister May than would be President Obama's policies—a view widely shared on both sides of the Atlantic. At the same time, Brexit—the United Kingdom's choice to leave the European Union—has created significant divisions in Britain. This has only increased the chances that a Conservative majority could bring about the most extreme form of Brexit (or "hard Brexit"). Given the importance of the U.S. market and other American trade ties with the U.K., and the likely long-term impact of U.S. disengagement, these two factors could combine to drive the U.K. in a more nationalist direction at home, thereby increasing the chances of a further split in the relationship, possibly even pushing the U.K. to choose not to be involved in many or even any military operations that the U.S. government might have a strategic interest in undertaking, such as in the Middle East or North Africa. A Conservative-led coalition government will likely be led by Theresa May, who campaigned for Brexit and who worked to "Remain" in the EU, only to see her leadership of her party undermined by both her opponents and many of her closest political associates. It is unclear at this stage whether Prime Minister May would remain in the position of leader of the Conservative Party if she wins an election, though she would have every right to do so. There will also likely be a more centrist Conservative prime minister who is expected to continue some of Prime Minister May's policies as far as immigration and employment are concerned. But the key question is whether the Labour Party will control the political discourse at all levels in the U.K. or whether it will be the Conservative Party that sets the policies and direction of the country. For Britain to truly remain a global leader, it needs to be able to both engage with and influence the United States in a variety of areas. This is another reason why the U.S. midterm elections are so critical for Britain. The British want to know if and when the next U.S. president will have a clear political mandate—and be able to move decisively. They want to know if a future U.S. president will choose to be a "normal president" or an "exceptional president." The Obama administration was viewed as a "normal president" and in that view, the British did not want to jeopardize the bilateral relationship. But the British understand the importance of the U.S.-U.K. relationship; they also recognize that their current leader, Prime Minister May, has taken a more "normal" stance and has done more to "balance" British interests (through trade and political alliances) with the United States. Both sides are looking forward to the next U.S. president to decide whether it is time for them to do the same. Britain also has a critical role to play in helping shape America's response to the terrorist attacks in Paris and elsewhere in November 2015. In December 2015, Prime Minister May led a delegation to the United States to discuss the threat of terrorism and to provide assistance and cooperation on this issue. It is important that U.K. leaders know whether or not the next U.S. president will use this as an opportunity to deepen the U.S.-U.K. relationship and, indeed, the U.S.-U.K.-EU relationship, which remains vital to the success of a collective response to terrorism at home and abroad. Many U.K. national security leaders, such as the director general of the British Security Services, MI5, and the director general of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, are very involved in the debate on U.S. foreign policy and national security, including whether a president or prime minister should act unilaterally on major issues. A Tory win would be a vindication of the Conservative Party's position on Brexit and could accelerate the country's move toward a "hard Brexit." This can only add to concerns that in the case of a future U.S.-U.K. crisis, Britain's participation could be viewed as less than helpful. The British are likely to want a president in the White House that will act in their interests in Europe and elsewhere and would view a future U.S. administration with the ability to act outside the usual international framework—as long as there is sufficient U.S. power—as best positioned to deal with these challenges. The future of the United States, Britain, and Europe, therefore, is linked. The election also has broader implications. Britain has chosen to leave the European Union and is actively pursuing a post-Brexit trade relationship with the EU. As a close ally, the U.S. is part of the negotiation process for this and a range of other issues with trade unions, governments, and businesses within the EU and throughout the world. This will require a close dialogue between American officials and their British counterparts that will need to be conducted in a positive and constructive way. Yet this new phase in the British relationship with the U.S. will occur at a time when domestic politics may make this more challenging, at least for the initial period. This is particularly the case for Labour Party leader and Prime Minister May's main rival, Jeremy Corbyn. It is clear from both his public pronouncements and his actions that he has been a consistent opponent of Britain's commitment to NATO. He appears to be no more enthusiastic than President Trump about the globalism that has defined the previous century—a view shared by many British conservatives—and seems to share a "little Englander" view of a post-Brexit United States that takes a less positive view of immigration. There is an emerging view that the future British prime minister will emerge from the Conservative Party and not the Labour Party. The most likely outcome in the United Kingdom is that a Tory majority in Britain could make Prime Minister May's position more secure, but with Prime Minister Corbyn possibly in the next Labour Party leader. U.K. politics will now shift to the left. The British will still need to work with both the U.S. and the EU on defense and security matters, but the political positions of Corbyn and his leadership team suggest that the United Kingdom is likely to be seen as less reliable as an ally. These uncertainties are not only a matter of political considerations. As the British seek to engage the United States in the search for peaceful settlements to conflicts in the Middle East, Asia, and elsewhere, they will need to have a greater confidence that the U.S. will be there with them. The British public is already skeptical about what they see as a U.S. "retreat from global affairs" and is wary of the need to "stand firm" in a post-Brexit world. These political winds will need to be taken into account as the United Kingdom continues to engage its closest ally on matters of national security. The United States has also changed its domestic policy and strategic direction. It is now considering leaving the international consensus on climate change. A Tory victory could leave the British public and the government with a clear mandate that will require the British to do more to show that they are prepared to take a more active leadership role in global affairs. They do not want the British to be viewed as a "special partner." This requires an effort on both sides of the Atlantic to find common ground between the United States and the United Kingdom on some of these issues. At this critical juncture, there is no need to speculate about the role Britain would want to play in this new U.S. globalism. Prime Minister May's commitment to remain in the European Union should make it clear that the United Kingdom will be very different from the United States—at least in the eyes of those who view it as the "sick man of Europe." But the U.S.-U.K. relationship can be much more than just a transactional agreement; it is a relationship with unique political and cultural underpinnings that have developed over decades—if not centuries. The U.S. and U.K. have common values; they also share a very deep commitment to the transatlantic community. Both nations should have the courage to ask the question "What's in it for Britain?" This special relationship can be better developed, if both sides can find common ground. This can only add to Britain's global soft power. President Trump has talked of the importance of international trade and has recognized the strategic importance of international partners such as the United Kingdom. A new American administration will have to learn about Britain. Learning is not just a simple act of recognition of British "achievements." It requires an understanding of the unique political and cultural strengths that have defined the relationship between Britain and America since the Second World War. In a digital age, this means that an important element of the strategic relationship is the ability to travel between the two countries and understand one another's culture, values