What Trump’s midterm defeat means for Israel and the Middle East

The war’s consequences could unfold in different directions. It might produce an even more hardline Iranian regime dominated by the Revolutionary Guards. Alternatively, history may show that Trump was the only president willing to confront Iran’s bullying regime and push it to the brink. The assassination of Qasem Soleimani marked the beginning of the weakening of Iranian influence and the so-called axis of resistance across the region.

We cannot know what the future holds. The legacies of American presidents are complicated mixtures of good and evil, becoming clear years after they leave office, sometimes only after their deaths.

Amid Trump’s current setbacks, he believes the war’s positive results will emerge later, and history will judge him accordingly. Let us hope he is right!

The American midterm elections, which gave Democrats majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives, reveal changes extending beyond Washington’s partisan balance.

They raise strategic questions about the future of US-Israeli relations and whether the alliance binding the two countries for decades can retain its traditional character amid growing divisions within both parties over the limits and costs of unconditional American support for Israel.

The significance lies in three converging developments: the consequences of the American-Israeli war against Iran, mounting American criticism of Israeli military operations in Gaza and settler violations in the West Bank, and the widening gap between US foreign policy priorities and domestic concerns over living costs, inflation and energy. Relations with Israel are no longer insulated from the American electorate’s economic, social, and political calculations.

The results do not signify the end of the strategic alliance, but they reveal the weakening of one of its most important guarantees: bipartisan consensus. Shared military and security interests remain central, yet rising political and economic costs and growing divisions could lead to a reassessment of the relationship’s terms and boundaries.

Israel’s greatest challenge may be not merely dealing with a new Democratic majority but confronting a changing American political environment in which unconditional support becomes harder to sustain. The alliance could evolve into a partnership increasingly subject to scrutiny of interests and political accountability.

For decades, bipartisan consensus rested on the belief that Israel’s security constituted an American strategic interest, with Republicans and Democrats broadly agreeing to provide military and political support despite disagreements over Israeli policies toward Palestinians.

That consensus is eroding as criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu grows among Democrats and calls increase to condition military assistance on respect for human rights and international law.

These developments extend into sections of the Republican Party, traditionally more steadfast in supporting Israel. Vice President JD Vance’s statements about reconsidering the relationship, and his suggestion that recovering voters disillusioned with Trump requires changing it, reflect an emerging Republican current that sees American military involvement in the Middle East and its financial burdens as incompatible with domestic priorities and “America First.”

Opposition to Israeli policies is no longer confined to progressive Democrats. It increasingly intersects with conservative Republican thinking, although motivations differ.

Progressive Democrats emphasize human rights and international law, while some Republicans oppose expensive foreign commitments and involvement in conflicts not directly connected to national security.

This overlap could produce cross-party congressional coalitions on particular issues concerning Israel without creating a lasting strategic consensus.

The election of Abdul El-Sayed as the first Muslim member of the US Senate indicates growing political representation of those critical of unconditional support for Israel.

Opinion polls also suggest increasing reservations among younger Americans, including some Republicans, about the assistance Washington provides. If this trend continues, Israel will become a more prominent electoral issue, placing greater constraints on policymakers.

Nevertheless, the Democratic majority’s ability to bring about immediate change should not be exaggerated. Trump retains constitutional authority over foreign policy and the power to veto legislation, which Congress can override only with two-thirds majorities in both chambers.

Yet Democratic control provides extensive powers of oversight, hearings, questioning administration officials, and reviewing military assistance agreements, alongside influence over diplomatic and security appointments. Congress’s authority over budgets and spending also allows sustained pressure without a veto-proof majority.

Strategically, Israel faces a dilemma beyond reduced military assistance or tighter oversight: the declining reliability of American support as an automatic, stable commitment across administrations. The alliance’s value lies not only in financing and weapons, but in Washington’s willingness to defend Israel in international institutions and provide political cover for military operations.

Eroding bipartisan consensus could gradually restrict Israel’s freedom of action even if military cooperation continues.

These developments are also connected to Israel’s leadership. The Oct. 27 elections demonstrated Netanyahu’s difficulty retaining his previous majority without giving his opponents a clear route to an alternative government.

A government less closely aligned with the Republican right might rebuild communication with Democrats and reduce tensions.

Changing the governing coalition alone, however, would not restore the former American consensus without tangible changes in Israeli policies toward Palestinians and regional conflicts.

Ultimately, the results open a new chapter in US-Israeli relations. They do not necessarily herald a decline in the military and security alliance but place its traditional form under review as divisions grow over the costs and limits of supporting Israel.

Tel Aviv may have to adapt to a new American equation in which bipartisan guarantees weaken, and considerations of national interest and political accountability become increasingly important.

There is a phenomenon in Lebanon worth contemplating, one no less peculiar than Lebanese politics itself: the ability of some Lebanese to analyze American elections not according to facts and evidence, but according to their political desires, as though US polling stations had opened specifically to confirm their predictions and preconceived positions.

Since the Democrats won the midterm elections for the Senate and House of Representatives, political analysis has reached fever pitch. Some proclaim the end of the Trump era, the decline of his influence, and Congress’s newfound ability to obstruct his policies and overturn Washington’s balance of power.

Others, depending on their political affiliations, offer precisely the opposite interpretations. Strikingly, many treat the result as a revolution in the American political system rather than a shift in the balance of power within one of its institutions.

Political analysis cannot be built on wishful thinking or on projecting local rivalries onto an entirely different political landscape.

The Democrats’ victory gives them significant legislative and oversight powers, creates obstacles for the president, and opens the door to investigations and accountability. But it does not strip Trump of his constitutional authority or turn the White House into a powerless institution.

This is where we must pause over one word: veto. The American Constitution gives the president the right to reject legislation passed by Congress. Trump can refuse to sign a bill that conflicts with his policies and return it to Congress.

His objection can be overridden only by a two-thirds majority in both chambers. This is no minor procedural detail, but a foundation of the system of checks and balances on which the American republic was built.

Democrats can win Congress, obstruct Trump’s initiatives, and force him to make new calculations. But they cannot assume everything they approve will automatically become law. There is an elected president with constitutional powers, not a spectator watching congressional battles.

The baseball cap associated with Trump’s image, bearing the word “VETO,” might symbolize this paradox. Caps may change, majorities may shift, and political rhetoric may evolve, but the Constitution does not change with every election.

Before distributing American victories and defeats according to Lebanese political preferences, it would be better to examine institutions, powers, and balances as they actually exist, rather than as we wish them to be.

In politics, as in life, the problem is not wanting a particular outcome. It is confusing that desire with reality. – Jean Feghali

The balance of power within the US, not merely within the administration, reveals developments demonstrating that the struggle between Republicans and Democrats is governed by constraints and established boundaries neither side can easily escape.

Influential centers of power exert considerable pressure within American society and closely monitor these developments. Their influence extends beyond conventional lobbying groups to forces operating behind the scenes that affect the direction of both chambers of Congress.

During a president’s four-year term, congressional elections accompany the presidential contest, while midterms give voters another opportunity to redefine the balance of power.

Following the Democrats’ midterm victory and their assumption of congressional control, Trump will find it harder to advance his decisions under opposition scrutiny, amid the possibility that he may challenge the election results.

The stability sought by both parties may remain elusive regardless of Trump’s conduct. With his second term halfway through, America’s centers of power may move to preserve domestic stability, convinced that the US must remain at the head of the international order.

Republicans face challenges concerning their future relationship with Trump and the MAGA movement as public support for the president declines.

While his supporters continue defending his policies and rhetoric, some Republican figures emphasize domestic and economic issues to avoid bearing the political cost of the administration’s declining popularity.

Discussions about leadership after Trump are increasing, with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio emerging in early conversations about the next presidential election.

Democrats face disagreements between their traditional leadership and progressive wing over the program needed to regain voters’ confidence.

The establishment seeks moderate and independent voters, while progressives advocate expanded healthcare and social programs, income redistribution, and a reassessment of foreign policy.

The growing prominence of progressive candidates reflects continuing ideological and organizational changes within the party.

Republican hardliners, meanwhile, are working to preserve their party’s stability and prominence.

The Republican Party is not synonymous with Trump, despite his arrival from outside its traditional institutions and his tendency to operate according to narrow calculations and personal interests.

Most allegations previously raised against Trump have largely disappeared from public discussion, with American political circles avoiding them in the interest of preserving the presidency, even as pressure has been exerted to reopen certain cases.

This suggests that different political options remain available and may be deployed when circumstances require.

Ultimately, judgments about the president cannot be determined simply by media coverage or Trump’s statements. What matters is his performance and decisions.

Whatever the precise results, the midterms were a direct referendum on Trump’s popularity and the measures he has taken over the past two years.

They also prompted a reassessment of his foreign policy, including decisions to ease economic pressure on Russia and his increasingly sharp criticism of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. These issues have drawn criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike.

The administration relaxed restrictions connected to Russian diesel exports and suspended sanctions in an attempt to encourage Moscow to negotiate an end to the war.

Confrontations over Trump’s policies have also extended to immigration, political protests, individual rights and other contentious issues.

American politics in the coming period will be governed by different standards and constraints, particularly in Trump’s conduct. Decision-making institutions, foremost among them Congress, will not necessarily move in a single direction.

They will pursue multiple courses simultaneously to protect American interests, regardless of the administration’s statements or the president’s declared positions.