POLITICAL setbacks for Trump and Netanyahu could strengthen Iran’s position and increase pressure to end the war. Elections often produce consequences far beyond national borders. The recent elections in the United States and Israel are a clear example. President Donald Trump has suffered a setback in the US congressional elections, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has failed to secure a parliamentary majority. Both developments could have important implications for Iran and the future of the Middle East conflict. Neither election was about Iran directly. Yet Tehran may emerge as an unexpected beneficiary. In the United States, Democrats have won control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The results reflect growing public dissatisfaction with Trump’s policies, particularly the rising cost of living, economic uncertainty and the war with Iran. For many Americans, the conflict is no longer just a foreign policy issue. Higher energy prices, mounting military expenditure and fears of a wider regional war have brought its consequences closer to home.
A Congress controlled by Democrats could make Trump’s military approach more difficult to sustain. Lawmakers can challenge his decisions, question war spending and push for diplomatic alternatives. However, the President retains considerable authority over foreign policy and national security. The political picture in Israel is equally complicated. In the October 27 elections, Netanyahu’s alliance secured only 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, falling short of the 61 needed for a majority. The Opposition also failed to secure a clear victory, leaving the country facing political uncertainty. Opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot is attempting to build support for a new government. Meanwhile, Netanyahu remains caretaker prime minister, although his political future is uncertain. These setbacks matter because Trump and Netanyahu have worked closely together in confronting Iran. Political pressure at home could now limit their ability to maintain the same level of military confrontation. For Tehran, this presents an opportunity. Iran may have calculated that waiting for the elections would improve its position. Rather than accepting American demands under military pressure, its leadership had reasons to believe that political developments in Washington could eventually work in its favour. The results may now give Iran greater bargaining power in future negotiations.
Trump faces stronger congressional opposition, while Netanyahu struggles to form a government. Both could face increasing pressure to reduce tensions and explore diplomatic solutions. But does this mean Iran has won? Not necessarily. The United States remains a powerful military and economic force. Moreover, support for Israel’s security continues across much of the American political establishment. Congressional opposition may complicate Trump’s decisions, but it cannot automatically end the conflict. Similarly, Netanyahu’s electoral difficulties do not guarantee a change in Israeli policy. Many opposition leaders also consider Iran a major security threat. A different government might change Israel’s strategy without fundamentally changing its position towards Tehran. The real significance of these elections lies in the political pressure they may create. Trump could decide that renewed negotiations offer a way to reduce the economic and political costs of the war. Iran, believing Washington is under pressure, may demand more favourable terms. However, negotiations will succeed only if both sides are prepared to compromise. Otherwise, the conflict could continue despite changing political circumstances.
The wider Middle East also has much at stake. Regional countries want stability, secure energy supplies and an end to economic uncertainty. A diplomatic settlement could reduce tensions, restore confidence and create opportunities for regional cooperation. These developments highlight an important lesson: military superiority does not always guarantee political success. Wars are not decided on battlefields alone. Public opinion, economic difficulties and electoral setbacks can influence government decisions just as strongly as military calculations. Trump and Netanyahu still possess considerable political power, but their electoral difficulties may narrow their choices. So, has Iran really won the US elections? The answer is no, at least not in the literal sense.
American voters elected their representatives, while Israelis voted for their parliament. Neither election was a direct vote for or against Iran. Nevertheless, Tehran could benefit if the results weaken its opponents’ political positions and increase pressure for negotiations. The crucial question is whether Iran can turn this advantage into a meaningful diplomatic achievement. Much will depend on Trump’s next decisions, Israel’s efforts to form a government and Iran’s willingness to negotiate. For now, Iran may have gained greater room to manoeuvre, but it is too early to declare victory. Iran has not won the elections. It may, however, have gained something valuable from their outcome: a stronger position at the negotiating table
—The author is a former technocrat and a geopolitical commentator from Lahore.
