A wounded Trump, a weakened Netanyahu: What next for the world order?

The Republican Party’s crushing defeat in the US midterm elections and Benjamin Netanyahu’s failure to secure a parliamentary majority in Israel point to emerging realignments in international politics. The two developments are closely interconnected. Over the past several months, Trump and Netanyahu have been largely aligned on virtually every major issue, from military operations against Iran to Israel’s military campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon and Washington’s role in the Middle East. Both leaders have sought to consolidate their domestic political positions by leveraging each other’s political influence. But the election results in both countries in early November have dealt a serious blow to that strategy. The questions now are: What lies ahead for the war with Iran? Will the dynamics of US-Israel relations undergo a shift? And how far-reaching could the consequences be for global politics?

On November 3, Democrats secured control of both chambers of the US Congress, winning majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Trump, who returned to the White House in 2024 amid enormous expectations, now finds himself considerably weakened politically. The Republican setback was driven by several factors, including the rising cost of living, inflation, allegations of corruption within the administration and the prolonged war with Iran.

According to a Reuters report, nearly 90 per cent of voters considered the cost of living an important factor in the election. An Associated Press survey, meanwhile, found that approximately 60 per cent of voters regarded the military campaign against Iran as a mistake.

Trump himself has acknowledged that the war with Iran influenced the electoral outcome. However, he remains unwilling to concede that the military campaign was a mistake. He has maintained that he would have made the same decision if given another opportunity.

With the new Congress set to convene in January, Trump is likely to face considerably greater political resistance. Democrats will have the power to investigate the administration's conduct, scrutinise military spending and challenge presidential decisions. Losing control of Congress, however, does not strip the president of his military authority. The US president remains the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Nevertheless, securing the financial resources and political backing required to sustain a prolonged war will become considerably more difficult.

Netanyahu's path back to power grows increasingly difficult

Just days before Trump's electoral setback, Netanyahu suffered a blow of his own in Israel's elections. In the October 27 election, the right-wing coalition led by Netanyahu secured 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, falling short of the 61 required for a parliamentary majority. The opposition alliance led by Gadi Eisenkot won 48 seats while Arab-led parties secured 19.

In other words, although Netanyahu's Likud remains the single largest political force, he lacks the numbers required to form a government on his own. He will therefore have to secure the support of other parties to put together a governing coalition. Under these circumstances, his political future remains uncertain.

For years, Netanyahu has maintained that his close relationship with Trump is essential to securing Washington's unwavering support for Israel. This explains the significance of their mutual public endorsements: Trump backed Netanyahu ahead of the American elections while Netanyahu openly supported Trump before the US went to the polls. The electoral setbacks suffered by both leaders have now cast serious doubt on the political strategy underpinning this alliance.

In Israel, Netanyahu's opponents are accusing him of weakening the country's traditionally bipartisan relationship with the United States through his policies. Until recently, Israel enjoyed broadly comparable importance in the eyes of both Democrats and Republicans. However, the wars in Gaza and Iran have fuelled growing opposition among sections of the American public to providing Israel with military and financial assistance.

This brings us to perhaps the most consequential question in international politics today. Since the joint US-Israeli military campaign began on February 28, the war with Iran has plunged the entire Middle East into instability. Iranian missile and drone strikes, escalating military tensions across the Gulf and disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz have also sent ripples through international energy markets.

Although the American and Israeli military campaigns have inflicted considerable damage on Iran's military infrastructure, they have failed to produce a definitive resolution to the question of its nuclear programme. The objectives of the war, therefore, remain only partially fulfilled.

Trump now faces two possible courses of action. He can either seek a negotiated settlement with Iran and find a way to bring the war to an end or intensify military operations in an attempt to force Tehran into submission. The first option may prove politically less damaging for him. The second, however, risks prolonging the conflict and deepening regional instability.

Some Gulf countries believe Trump's electoral defeat will increase the pressure on him to reach an understanding with Iran and bring the war to a close. However, if Tehran attempts to exploit Washington's political vulnerability to gain a military advantage, the situation could become even more complicated. China, meanwhile, has already been stepping up its diplomatic efforts to bring the conflict to an end.

For decades, the United States has been Israel's most important military and diplomatic backer. Washington has provided Israel with approximately $3.8 billion in military assistance annually. It has also repeatedly used its veto at the UN Security Council to block resolutions critical of Israel.

But the political costs of this relationship are now becoming increasingly apparent for Trump. Among sections of the American electorate, a perception has taken hold that, in seeking to protect Israeli interests, the Trump administration has dragged the United States into a protracted war. Consequently, the policy of extending unconditional support to Israel is facing growing scrutiny within America itself.

With Democrats gaining control of the new Congress, Israel's military operations, the human rights situation in Gaza and American arms supplies to the country are likely to attract greater scrutiny and investigation. Trump himself has also spoken about ending annual military assistance to Israel after the end of 2026. However, whether such a decision will actually be implemented and what direction future American policy will take remain unclear.

The war in Ukraine could also enter a new phase. Democrats may challenge the Trump administration's position on sanctions against Russia and military assistance to Ukraine. If the new Congress pushes for greater support for Kyiv, pressure on Trump's policies could intensify. However, there is little reason to expect an immediate increase in American military assistance to Ukraine.

China, too, figures prominently in this changing geopolitical landscape. Trump's tariff policies had generated considerable anxiety across several Asian countries. The Democrats' strengthened position in Congress could bring at least some checks on the administration's trade policies. This could also have implications for ongoing trade negotiations between India and the United States. In particular, experts believe New Delhi may find greater room to negotiate on protecting India's agricultural sector.

The electoral setbacks suffered by Trump and Netanyahu point to a potentially significant shift in international politics. Military might, nationalist rhetoric and attempts to rally domestic support by identifying external enemies do not necessarily translate into electoral success. Economic security, the rising cost of living and the burden of prolonged wars can ultimately weigh far more heavily on voters' minds.

Yet there is little reason to assume that these electoral setbacks will automatically pave the way for peace in the Middle East. On the contrary, the two leaders, increasingly cornered at home, could resort to more aggressive military policies in an attempt to preserve their political positions. Unless an acceptable resolution to the war with Iran emerges, the possibility of a fresh escalation and the conflict spreading further cannot be ruled out.

Trump still wields the powers of the American presidency while Netanyahu has not been entirely eliminated from the race to form Israel's next government. Nevertheless, it is evident that the political foundations of both leaders are no longer as secure as they once were. The trajectory of international politics in the coming months will depend, to a considerable extent, on whether they interpret these electoral verdicts as a call for compromise or choose instead to pursue further confrontation to safeguard their political survival.

For the rest of the world, one question looms larger than all others: will ordinary people once again be made to pay the price for this struggle for political power?