TEHRAN - The political earthquake of November 3 has changed the balance of power in Washington and exposed the growing costs of Donald Trump's political and foreign-policy choices. For Republicans, the defeat is more than the loss of congressional seats. It raises a question that the party has spent years avoiding: can it have a political future beyond Trump, his policies and an increasingly contentious relationship with Israel?

The verdict delivered by American voters was unmistakable. Democrats have taken control of both chambers of Congress, ending the Republican monopoly over Washington and turning the final two years of Trump's presidency into a period of divided government. The scale of the reversal is striking: Democrats captured seats in states that had appeared safely Republican, including Texas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina. What began as a midterm election has become a sweeping rebuke of the president and the party that largely followed his lead.

The war against Iran was not the only reason for the Republican collapse, but it may prove to be one of its most consequential. It exposed the distance between Trump's campaign promises and the reality of his presidency.

Trump had built much of his political identity around rejecting America's costly foreign interventions. His message to voters was that Washington should stop spending American lives and resources on wars abroad and concentrate instead on problems at home. Yet his administration entered an extensive confrontation with Iran, alongside Israel, that lasted far beyond the swift campaign initially anticipated.

The administration's military claims and its assessment of the damage inflicted on Iran did not settle the larger question: what had the United States actually achieved, and at what cost? A campaign presented as a demonstration of American power became a source of strategic uncertainty, economic pressure and political vulnerability.

The consequences reached American households. Energy-market disruptions and rising fuel prices fed into the cost-of-living concerns that dominated the election. According to exit-poll reporting, nearly nine in ten voters regarded the cost of living as a major or crucial factor in their decisions. A majority also believed Trump's policies, including the Iran war and tariffs, had made their economic circumstances worse.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that 86 percent of Americans believed the war had been bad for the cost of living. Sixty-eight percent said it had not been worth fighting, compared with 31 percent who considered it worthwhile. Among independent voters, opposition was even stronger: 76 percent said the costs outweighed the benefits.

These figures help explain why the conflict became an electoral liability. The war was not necessarily the issue voters named first when entering the polling booth. Its effects, however, were difficult to separate from the economic problems they were already experiencing.

Even Trump has acknowledged that the conflict played a role in the Republican losses. In an interview following the election, he conceded that the war with Iran had contributed to the party's defeat.

But the political reckoning facing Republicans extends beyond the president's handling of the war. It reaches into the party's relationship with Israel   an issue that has increasingly exposed divisions between its traditional leadership and a younger generation of conservative voters.

For decades, support for Israel has been one of the most firmly established positions in Republican politics. Evangelical voters, older conservatives and influential party figures have regarded the alliance as both a strategic necessity and an ideological commitment. That support remains substantial. The Chicago Council's 2026 survey found that 68 percent of Republicans favored maintaining or increasing US military assistance to Israel.

Yet the same political landscape is changing. The Council found that 56 percent of Americans overall favored reducing or eliminating US military aid to Israel. Favorable views of Israel have also declined among Republicans, falling from an average of 69 points in 2022 to 62 in 2026 on the Council's feeling thermometer. The decline has been particularly pronounced among younger conservatives, whose objections increasingly concern the extent to which US policy should be shaped by the decisions of the Israeli government.

The Iran war has accelerated this debate. Questions that were once confined largely to the margins of conservative politics have moved closer to the Republican mainstream: Should American taxpayers bear the financial burden of another Middle Eastern conflict? Should Washington's military commitments be determined by its own national interests or by the strategic calculations of an ally? And can a party built around the slogan of America First continue to avoid answering those questions?

These are questions about the terms of relationship between the US and Israel, the policies of the Israeli government and the degree to which American interests should remain the guiding principle of Washington's decisions.

Republican candidates had already recognized the political danger. A Reuters review published before the election found that two-thirds of Republicans running in competitive congressional races had either diverged from Trump on policy or played down their association with him. In 12 contests, the disagreements specifically concerned the Iran conflict. Yet most candidates avoided a complete break with the president, illustrating the political trap: distancing themselves from Trump could alienate his loyal supporters, while remaining closely associated with him could cost them independent voters.

The election has made that balancing act considerably more difficult.

Republicans now face two competing political realities. Trump retains considerable influence over the party and a loyal electoral base. But his presidency has also become a burden for candidates who must appeal to voters beyond that base. With Democrats controlling both chambers, the party's divisions are likely to become more visible as Republicans debate how to respond to investigations, legislative confrontations and the next presidential succession.

The Israel question will be particularly difficult. A wholesale break with a longstanding ally would carry political consequences of its own, particularly among evangelical voters and established Republican constituencies. But treating every policy decision of the Israeli government as beyond question risks deepening the generational and ideological divisions already visible within the party.

The challenge, therefore, is not simply whether Republicans should distance themselves from Trump personally. It is whether they can recover an independent political identity   one capable of distinguishing American national interests from the president's personal priorities and from the policies of foreign governments, however close their alliances may be.

The Democrats' victory does not automatically mean the end of Trumpism, nor does it guarantee that the Republican Party will undergo a fundamental transformation. Trump remains president, commander-in-chief and a powerful figure within his party. But the election has demonstrated that loyalty to him is not an unlimited electoral asset.

For Republicans, the next two years will be a test of whether the party can function as something more than an extension of one man's political project. If it cannot find room for internal debate over foreign policy, economic priorities and the relationship with Israel, the divisions exposed at the ballot box may become a defining feature of its future.

The November result was a verdict on the present. The larger question is whether Republicans will recognize it as a warning about the future.