They Promised Regime Change in Iran. The Ballot Boxes Struck in Washington and “Israel”

By Mohamamd Hammoud

Four Elections, Four Warnings for “Israel”

“Israel” lost four elections in just ten days. That was the alarming assessment published by “The Jerusalem Post” on November 4, examining electoral setbacks stretching from Serbia and Brazil to the “Israeli” Knesset and the United States. What appeared to be separate political contests revealed a troubling pattern for “Tel Aviv”: the weakening of alliances that had long protected its interests.

The concern extended beyond individual defeats, pointing to a deeper political shift, particularly in Washington, where bipartisan support for “Israel” had remained a cornerstone of American foreign policy for decades. Yet the November 3 midterms made that uncertainty impossible to ignore. Democrats captured both chambers of Congress, while candidates challenging unconditional military assistance to “Israel” demonstrated growing electoral strength.

For “Israeli” commentators, the results raised a question far more consequential than which party-controlled Washington: Was “Israel” beginning to lose the political protection it had long taken for granted?

When Loyalty to “Israel” Could Not Win Elections

Michigan offered perhaps the clearest illustration of this shift. Democratic Congresswoman Haley Stevens, whose devotion to “Israel” was unmistakable, once declared that “'Israel' comes to me in my dreams.” Such expressions of loyalty were accompanied by extraordinary financial backing, with AIPAC and affiliated organizations spending nearly $30 million supporting her Senate primary campaign against Abdul El-Sayed.

Yet Stevens lost. Rather than support her party’s nominee, she endorsed Republican Mike Rogers, another staunch supporter of “Israel.” But Rogers also lost to El-Sayed, an outspoken opponent of unconditional American military assistance to “Israel.”

For “Israeli” observers, these defeats carried a troubling message: neither declarations of loyalty nor enormous financial resources could guarantee victory. More significantly, El-Sayed’s success suggested that opposing unconditional American support for “Israel” was no longer merely politically acceptable but could offer an electoral advantage.

Netanyahu Blamed for Washington’s Changing Mood

The anxiety extended beyond Michigan. The “Jerusalem Post” warned that growing Democratic criticism could reshape congressional debates over military aid and arms sales. More troubling for “Tel Aviv”, however, was mounting Republican dissatisfaction, as Trump allies increasingly linked their electoral setbacks to the Iran war, rising fuel prices, and public frustration.

Vice President JD Vance echoed these concerns, citing voters demanding an end to the war, lower living costs, and greater priority for American interests. The newspaper warned that Republicans searching for explanations for their defeat could increasingly blame Netanyahu’s influence over Trump’s military decisions.

Meanwhile, “Israeli” opposition leader Yair Lapid accused Netanyahu of jeopardizing relations with Washington, turning the American election results into another source of pressure on the prime minister.

The Historical Privilege Under Question

For decades, Republicans and Democrats competed to demonstrate who stood closer to “Israel,” despite disagreements on other policies. Yet the November 3 midterms signaled a potential turning point. As Reuters reported on November 4, the incoming Congress could undertake one of the most significant reassessments of Washington’s support for “Israel” in decades.

The historical significance lies not in the emergence of criticism but in its growing political influence, particularly among Democrats, alongside rising dissatisfaction within Republican ranks. For “Tel Aviv”, the prospect of losing unquestioned bipartisan backing represents a 
strategic challenge extending far beyond a single election.

The Regime Change Paradox

The political uncertainty extended to Netanyahu himself, whose October 27 election left his bloc with just 53 parliamentary seats, eight short of a governing majority. His setback exposed a striking irony: while Trump and Netanyahu pursued war against Iran, threatening Tehran with regime change, their own political establishments faced electoral upheaval.

Netanyahu struggled to form a governing coalition, while Trump’s Republican allies lost control of Congress amid growing dissatisfaction with the Iran war and its economic consequences.
The warning emerging from “Israeli” media thus extended beyond individual electoral defeats. Washington’s longstanding political protection was facing growing scrutiny, while Netanyahu’s own future remained uncertain. Those who sought to reshape Iran’s political future through war now faced voters challenging the direction of their own governments.