Trump, Eisenkot, and the Uncertainties of the Middle East

A Democratic wave has cost the U.S. president and his Republican Party both chambers of Congress. In Israel, President Isaac Herzog ended the suspense by tasking the opposition leader with forming a new government. What will this mean for the region and the war in Iran and Lebanon? The options remain open.

This week will go down as one of the most memorable of the year. The eagerly awaited U.S. midterm elections exceeded the expectations of President Donald Trump’s fiercest critics. He and his Republican Party suffered a resounding defeat, losing both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

In the House of Representatives, Democrats now hold 254 seats to the Republicans’ 162. But the biggest surprise came from the Senate results, not only with the election of a Democratic majority, but also with the arrival of figures fiercely opposed by President Trump, such as Abdul el-Sayed in Michigan, the first Muslim senator. The flipping of traditionally Republican states, such as Texas, also drew attention.

The newly elected lawmakers will not take office until January 3, 2027, however. Vice President JD Vance attributed the Democrats’ decisive victory to the war against Iran and the resulting surge in oil prices. Vance faced sharp criticism in the United States for that assessment. President Trump himself nevertheless acknowledged the war’s impact, without expressing any regrets about it.

The Iranians, for their part, made no secret of their satisfaction at such a defeat for their sworn enemy, even though their own regime could hardly be further removed from democracy. Iranian security chief Mohsen Rezaei wrote on X that the Iranian nation had “inflicted a strategic defeat on Donald Trump on the battlefield and in the Strait of Hormuz, and a political defeat in Washington.”

Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, who remains mysteriously out of public view, was more cautious, arguing that the electoral defeat did not fundamentally alter American hostility toward his regime.

Indeed, speculation was rife throughout the week about which course President Trump would take in the conflict with Iran: further negotiations toward a settlement, or a return to large-scale military action? The first option would be driven by a desire to extricate himself from a predicament that has already cost him dearly. The second would reflect a desire to reclaim some notion of victory and an inclination to make the most of the time he has left with a free hand.

The week ended with neither option having prevailed, while the White House continued to send mixed signals. According to press analyses, Trump would now have little to lose by ordering fresh strikes against Tehran, particularly its nuclear sites and even its civilian infrastructure—bridges—and oil facilities. In an announcement made public this week, the Pentagon offered $20 million for information on Iran’s nuclear program.

Negotiations are nevertheless continuing, notably under Qatar’s auspices, and a plan is on the table that would allow oversight of Iran’s nuclear facilities while taking Tehran’s demands into account.

Eisenkot in power

This week of change continued on Sunday with Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s announcement that he had appointed Gadi Eisenkot to lead the new government, nearly two weeks after parliamentary elections failed to produce a clear majority. Incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu secured the backing of 46 lawmakers, compared with 67 for Eisenkot. Netanyahu had repeatedly called this week for a national unity government, but his opponents would rather see him in opposition.

Forming a government may not be easy, however, given the divisions within the current opposition camp, although it appears all but certain that Arab Israeli lawmakers would support an Eisenkot government without joining it. At a joint press conference with President Herzog, Eisenkot took a firm stance against Hamas, which he described as a “terrorist” organization.

Under the present circumstances, it is still too early to predict his political approach, particularly toward Lebanon. A report by Israel’s Channel 14 claimed that the new Israeli leader favored a swift military withdrawal from Lebanon. Eisenkot was quick to deny this, even demanding an apology from the channel.

A new wind thus seems to be blowing across the region following the two long-awaited elections. But their actual repercussions remain shrouded in uncertainty.