This election was about Iraq; the result lays full blame on President Bush for the misjudgments of the war.

But it would be a mistake to deduce that there will be a big change in the way the US acts abroad, in Iraq or beyond. The drama of Donald Rumsfeld’s exit last night may not bring much more than a softer tone.

The calls for a change in Iraq from both parties are empty. Nancy Pelosi, set to be the Speaker of the House, called on Bush for “a new direction”; Republican senator Olympia Snowe said that policy “has to change”. To what?

Democrats have no alternative — and how could they? The US has no options it can control other than “stay in” or “get out”. It hopes, of course, that Iraqi security forces will permit it the middle course of gradual withdrawal. But on their past record, they won’t.

Democratic leaders have rejected, as electoral suicide, cutting off cash for the war, as they did over Vietnam.

On the face of it, yesterday’s bipartisan soundbites give more weight to the forthcoming report by James Baker, Secretary of State under President H.W. Bush. But in practice, it is hard to see how it would prompt a real change of course.

One of Baker’s favorite themes is the value of talking to Iran and Syria, a message unlikely to be well received by an Administration that has regarded contact as a reward, not a tool of diplomacy. The imminent UN decision on a tribunal on the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, will give the US more reason not to talk to Damascus.

The results may have taken the bellicose edge off the Administration — except that Iraq had already done that. It is less likely that Bush will use the rump of his presidency to bomb Iran.

Elsewhere, there may be a softer tone. The White House may sound more receptive to calls from Democrats (and Tony Blair) for more “engagement” in the Middle East. But the US has few options.

Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian chief negotiator, said yesterday: “Our experience is whether it is Democrats or Republicans, we don’t see much difference when it comes to dealing with Israel.” Cynical; but at the moment, probably fair.

US energy for free-trade deals is likely to weaken. Democrats in Congress have a strong protectionist reflex but, in any case, the constituency for this cause is disappearing in the US. That is regrettable; those who pillory the Administration’s ambition in Iraq tend to take for granted its efforts on this front.

The broader question raised by these results is how the US’s changing vision of its own government will affect its foreign policy, more significant than anything the new House does. One of the contradictions of the Bush presidency is that it has promoted democracy abroad while, its critics charge, overriding constitutional curbs on its own authority at home.

It has pursued that power under the banner of the “War on Terror” — but also out of a belief in the need for a strong executive, a cause taken up by those who call themselves “results-oriented” Republicans.

This election has given their cause a setback, but the US is left deeply divided about how it believes it should be governed. At the same time Iraq has shaken its policy for promoting change in the region.

It is healthy for the US that this Administration has been reined in by the exercise of democracy. But the US’s deep internal arguments, as well as the failure in Iraq, may cause it to withdraw from foreign causes it might otherwise have pursued with confidence.

Those who have accused it of naivety and overambition in Iraq might still regret its engagement on many fronts if that is withdrawn.

Times Recommends

• Treat Africans as part of the human jigsaw
• Too bitter a pill for me to swallow
• This Bill is a panic measure in a tarnished age