Trump and Netanyahu Wanted Regime Change in Iran. Instead, They Both Got a Political Shock at Home

International News Analysis | November 4, 2026

The two leaders who joined forces in an ambitious campaign to weaken Iran’s government and encourage regime change are now facing serious political consequences in their own countries. Donald Trump has suffered a major electoral setback in the United States, while Benjamin Netanyahu is struggling to secure his political future in Israel.

What was supposed to become a historic victory against Iran has turned into a political headache for two of the most powerful figures behind the military campaign.

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu entered the confrontation with Iran believing that military pressure, the destruction of key military facilities and the weakening of Iranian leadership could create the conditions for a change of government in Tehran.

But the outcome has been far more complicated than either leader might have anticipated.

Iran’s political system has survived the military campaign, despite suffering enormous damage and losing senior figures. Meanwhile, the political consequences of the war have begun to catch up with its architects.

The latest developments in Washington and Jerusalem have raised an uncomfortable question: Did the leaders who wanted to change Iran’s government end up creating the conditions for political change at home?

The answer is becoming increasingly difficult for both leaders to ignore.

1. Iran’s government survived the campaign for regime change

When the United States and Israel launched their joint military campaign against Iran on February 28, 2026, both governments presented the operation as a historic opportunity to weaken the Islamic Republic.

The military campaign targeted Iranian military infrastructure, missile capabilities, security institutions and senior leadership figures. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was among those killed in the opening phase of the conflict.

The scale of the attacks suggested that Washington and Jerusalem were prepared to fundamentally reshape Iran’s political and military future.

However, removing senior leaders did not automatically translate into removing the government.

Netanyahu wanted the military campaign to create conditions in which ordinary Iranians could rise against their government. He repeatedly encouraged Iranians to take to the streets and seize control of their country’s future.

Trump also initially called on the Iranian population to take advantage of the military operation to change their government.

But the anticipated popular uprising did not materialise.

In March, Axios reported that Netanyahu had proposed a joint public appeal encouraging Iranians to take to the streets. Trump reportedly resisted the idea, warning that protesters could be killed by Iranian security forces.

The disagreement exposed an important difference between the two leaders. Netanyahu saw regime change as a central strategic objective, while Trump increasingly treated it as a possible additional benefit of the military campaign. Axios +1

By September, CNN was reporting that Trump was still questioning why the Iranian population had not overthrown its leaders, despite months of military pressure.

The Iranian government had suffered enormous losses, but the political system had not collapsed.

That became one of the biggest disappointments of the campaign.

2. Trump suffers a major political defeat in America

While Iran was dealing with the consequences of the war, the political situation in the United States was changing dramatically.

On November 3, 2026, American voters went to the polls for the country’s midterm elections.

The outcome was a major blow to Trump’s Republican Party.

Democrats won control of both chambers of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, delivering a significant rejection of the president’s political agenda.

The results were particularly damaging because Republicans had entered the election hoping to maintain control of Congress and protect Trump’s ability to govern.

Instead, Democrats made extraordinary gains, including in traditionally Republican territory.

According to Reuters, dissatisfaction with the cost of living was a major factor in the election. Exit polling indicated that nearly nine in ten voters considered the cost of living a crucial or major factor in their decision.

The war with Iran also became a significant political issue.

Democratic candidates criticised the administration’s military involvement, arguing that the conflict had contributed to rising fuel prices and increased financial pressure on American households.

Trump subsequently acknowledged that the war had played a role in the Republican defeat.

Speaking to American media on November 4, he admitted that Iran was part of the reason Republicans lost, although he continued defending his decision to launch the military campaign.

He maintained that he had made the right decision and said he would do it again.

The admission was politically significant.

It demonstrated that the administration could no longer completely separate its foreign policy decisions from the economic and political consequences being felt by American voters. Reuters +2

What does the Democratic victory mean for Trump?

The Democratic victory does not automatically remove Trump from the presidency.

He remains the president of the United States, and the midterm results do not themselves terminate his constitutional authority.

However, losing control of both chambers of Congress will make governing considerably more difficult.

Democrats will have greater opportunities to:

• Investigate the administration’s handling of the Iran war.
• Question senior officials through congressional hearings.
• Challenge government spending priorities.
• Block or reshape parts of Trump’s legislative agenda.
• Increase scrutiny of military assistance to Israel.
• Investigate decisions surrounding the administration’s foreign policy.

The political implications could extend well beyond the Iran conflict.

Trump entered office promising to prioritise American interests, reduce unnecessary foreign entanglements and improve the financial circumstances of ordinary Americans.

His critics now have an opportunity to argue that the Iran war distracted the administration from those promises.

The president who wanted to influence the future of Iran is now facing a Congress that will be much more willing to challenge his own decisions.

AP News +1

3. Netanyahu faces a serious fight for political survival in Israel

The political situation in Israel is equally complicated.

Netanyahu has spent years presenting himself as the Israeli leader capable of confronting Iran and protecting his country from what he describes as an existential threat.

The military campaign against Iran offered him an opportunity to demonstrate that leadership.

However, the October 27, 2026 Israeli parliamentary election did not deliver the decisive political victory he needed.

The election left Netanyahu’s political bloc with 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, while the opposition bloc led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot secured 48 seats.

Arab-led parties won the remaining 19 seats.

A government needs at least 61 seats to command a parliamentary majority.

The result meant Netanyahu’s coalition had lost its governing majority, although his political opponents also lacked enough seats to form a government without additional support.

Netanyahu therefore remained in office as caretaker prime minister while negotiations over the formation of a new government began.

His political future was suddenly uncertain. The Washington Post +2

Opposition leaders unite against Netanyahu

On November 3, Israel’s opposition leaders agreed to support Gadi Eisenkot as their preferred candidate to replace Netanyahu.

The opposition alliance includes prominent political figures such as former prime ministers and party leaders Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett, alongside other political opponents of the current government.

Their objective is to form a new government and bring Netanyahu’s long period of political dominance to an end.

However, the opposition faces its own challenge.

Even with 48 seats, it needs additional parliamentary support to reach the 61-seat threshold. The Arab-led parties, which collectively secured 19 seats, could prove decisive, but there are disagreements within the opposition about whether to work with them.

The political situation is therefore far from settled.

Netanyahu still has a possible route to another term through coalition negotiations, and a failure by both sides to form a government could eventually lead to another election.

Nevertheless, the fact that his governing coalition has lost its majority represents a major political setback. Al Jazeera +2

4. Netanyahu’s relationship with America is becoming a political liability

Another consequence of the Iran conflict is the growing disagreement over Israel’s relationship with the United States.

For decades, American support for Israel has enjoyed considerable backing from both major political parties.

Although disagreements have existed between Democratic and Republican administrations, Israel has traditionally benefited from strong bipartisan support in Washington.

However, Netanyahu’s increasingly close political relationship with Republican leaders, particularly Donald Trump, has complicated that relationship.

The Gaza war had already created significant divisions among American voters. The joint military campaign against Iran added another layer of controversy.

During the November 2026 elections, some Democratic candidates made American military assistance to Israel an important campaign issue.

Netanyahu’s opponents in Israel have now seized on the Democrats’ victory as evidence that his political approach has damaged Israel’s international standing.

According to Reuters, opposition politicians argued that Netanyahu had weakened the bipartisan relationship that traditionally protected Israel in Washington.

Yair Lapid warned that Netanyahu’s continued leadership endangered Israel’s security, democracy and international standing.

Yair Golan also argued that Netanyahu had become politically toxic among Democrats and some Republicans.

The significance of these criticisms should not be underestimated.

Israel relies heavily on its relationship with the United States for military, diplomatic and strategic support.

A more hostile Congress could make that relationship increasingly difficult, particularly when questions about military assistance and the conduct of Israeli military operations arise.

Reuters also reported that the incoming Democratic-controlled Congress could use hearings, investigations and budgetary measures to increase pressure on Israel.

For Netanyahu, this creates a difficult situation: his close relationship with Trump, which once appeared to be a major political advantage, is now being used by his domestic opponents as evidence of poor political judgement. Reuters +1

5. The economic cost of the Iran war is becoming a political problem

One of the most important reasons the conflict has become politically damaging is its economic impact.

Wars are not measured only by the number of military targets destroyed or the number of enemy commanders eliminated. They are also measured by their financial consequences, their impact on ordinary people and whether governments achieve the objectives they promised.

The confrontation with Iran has created serious economic uncertainty, particularly around energy supplies and shipping routes.

The Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important oil transportation routes, became a major flashpoint during the conflict.

Disruptions to shipping and energy supplies contributed to rising oil and fuel prices, putting additional pressure on consumers and businesses.

For American households already struggling with the cost of living, the consequences became increasingly difficult to ignore.

The Trump administration had promised to make life more affordable for Americans. Instead, the war became another issue that voters could use to judge the president’s performance.

Al Jazeera’s August 30 analysis reported that petrol prices in the United States had risen significantly since the conflict began, while Trump’s approval ratings were under pressure.

The report also highlighted how the economic consequences of the war were affecting political calculations in both Washington and Jerusalem. Al Jazeera +1

The economic consequences have also affected Iran, which has faced extensive destruction, sanctions and pressure on its financial system.

However, economic hardship has not automatically produced the political uprising that Netanyahu and some American officials had anticipated.

This is an important lesson for governments considering military intervention as a shortcut to political transformation: weakening a country economically does not necessarily mean its government will collapse.

6. Did the war achieve its original objectives?

This is perhaps the most important question surrounding the entire campaign.

Trump and Netanyahu can point to significant military achievements.

Iran’s military infrastructure has suffered damage. Senior officials and commanders have been killed. Important facilities have been attacked, and the country’s military capabilities have been subjected to sustained pressure.

But military success and political success are not necessarily the same thing.

If the central objective was to destroy Iran’s military capabilities, the campaign may have achieved some important results.

If the objective was to overthrow the Iranian government and establish a completely different political system, the results are much less convincing.

The Iranian government has survived.

The country has not experienced the popular uprising that Netanyahu hoped would follow the attacks.

And the military confrontation has created political difficulties for the very leaders who initiated it.

An August 2026 Al Jazeera analysis quoted regional experts who argued that Netanyahu had concentrated too heavily on regime change instead of focusing on the more limited objective of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The report also highlighted concerns that the war had not eliminated the Iranian nuclear threat.

This is important because destroying nuclear facilities does not automatically eliminate a country’s scientific knowledge, technical expertise or determination to pursue strategic capabilities.

The long-term outcome therefore remains uncertain. Al Jazeera +1

7. Trump and Netanyahu are now facing the consequences of their own decisions

There is an interesting political irony in the developments of November 2026.

Trump and Netanyahu wanted to influence the political future of Iran.

They believed that military pressure could create the conditions for a new political order in Tehran.

But their own political positions are now facing serious challenges.

In America, Trump has suffered a major electoral defeat, with Democrats taking control of both chambers of Congress.

In Israel, Netanyahu’s governing coalition has lost its parliamentary majority, and opposition leaders are organising to replace him.

Neither development means that the two leaders have immediately lost their positions.

Trump remains president, while Netanyahu remains caretaker prime minister as Israel works through its coalition negotiations.

But both have suffered setbacks that could fundamentally affect their political influence.

There is also an important difference between the two situations.

Trump’s defeat in the midterms is a clear loss of congressional control. Netanyahu’s election result has created a parliamentary deadlock rather than an outright transfer of government.

Nevertheless, the political message is significant.

Voters in both countries are increasingly questioning the leadership, decisions and priorities of the people who took their countries into the confrontation with Iran.

And that is where the headline takes on its full meaning.

They wanted regime change in Iran, but the war helped create the conditions for political change in their own countries.

8. What happens next?

The coming months could determine whether the political consequences of the war become even more serious.

For Trump, the immediate challenge is governing with a Democratic-controlled Congress.

His administration may face investigations into the decision to attack Iran, the financial costs of the conflict and the wider consequences for American foreign policy.

He will also have to consider whether continuing military pressure against Iran is worth the domestic political cost.

For Netanyahu, the challenge is even more immediate.

He must navigate coalition negotiations while facing an opposition that is determined to remove him from power.

If he fails to form a government, Israel could face another election.

His relationship with Trump may also become more complicated because the American president will now have to deal with a Congress controlled by Democrats.

For Iran, the challenge is rebuilding after months of military confrontation while dealing with economic pressure and the consequences of the attacks.

The country still faces major security, economic and diplomatic questions.

However, its survival as a political system has complicated the calculations of Washington and Jerusalem.

The future of the conflict will depend on whether diplomacy can produce a sustainable agreement or whether the region faces another round of military escalation.

Conclusion: The regime change they did not anticipate

Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu entered the Iran confrontation believing they could help reshape the political future of the Middle East.

They wanted to weaken Iran, undermine its leadership and create conditions for a different government in Tehran.

But political realities have proved more complicated than military calculations.

Iran’s government has survived the campaign, while the economic and political consequences of the war have placed enormous pressure on both leaders.

Trump’s Republicans have lost control of Congress. Netanyahu’s coalition has lost its parliamentary majority, and his opponents are working to replace him.

It would be inaccurate to say that either leader has already been removed from office. But it would also be difficult to dismiss the political message coming from voters in both countries.

Perhaps the biggest lesson from this conflict is that governments can launch wars expecting to change the political future of another country, only to discover that their own citizens are questioning their leadership.

They went looking for regime change in Tehran. Instead, they returned home to find their own political authority under attack.

And that may become one of the most consequential political ironies of the 2026 Iran war.

Sources and further reading

The following reports provide the factual background for this analysis:

• Reuters – Trump acknowledges Iran war played a role in Republican midterm losses (November 4, 2026).
• Reuters – Netanyahu rivals seize on Democrats’ sweep of US Congress, seeking his ouster (November 4, 2026).
• Al Jazeera – Israel vote results confirmed as election commission rejects fraud claims (November 4, 2026).
• Al Jazeera – Israeli opposition leaders back Eisenkot to oust Netanyahu (November 3, 2026).
• Al Jazeera – The home front: How Israel, Iran, and US leaders have been hit by the war (August 30, 2026).
• Axios – Trump rebuffed Netanyahu’s idea to call for an Iran uprising (March 25, 2026).
• Reuters – Top takeaways from the US midterm elections (November 4, 2026).

Editorial note: This is an analytical news article. It distinguishes between confirmed election results, reported military objectives and political interpretation. Netanyahu has not yet been removed from office, and Trump has not lost the presidency.