Trump’s post-midterm setbacks in the United States in November and Netanyahu’s humiliating defeat in the October general elections should be viewed together in relation to Iran’s triumph. The imperialist forces that both Trump and Netanyahu pursued were defeated—at least for the time being—and the world breathed a sigh of relief. The war with Iran has aggravated domestic economic misery in the United States. It has raised fuel prices and stoked inflation, unsettling voters much as the Iraq War did in 2006.
The elections in Brazil and Serbia offer two further examples of right-wing, fascist-style populism waning at the ballot box. In Brazil, Lula’s victory over his right-wing rival—who fled to the United States after his defeat—was a glorious one. Lula’s support for multilateralism, the international rule of law, and Global South solidarity makes him a rallying point for a more vocal challenge to Western hegemony than other BRICS leaders provide. To a large extent, his victory has halted the right-wing march across Latin America.
The defeat of the right-wing leader Aleksandar Vučić by the parliamentary alliance in Serbia is historic because it shows that the right-wing, fascist-style march is reversible. Its longevity can be curtailed by a resolute, democratic, pro-people alliance. It also exposed right-wing populism as a lie repeated a thousand times. Furthermore, this victory teaches that resistance to authoritarianism is not uniquely Western. The Global South has a strong tradition of popular resistance, and the Indian freedom struggle is a case in point.
The crushing defeats of Trump and Netanyahu are a wake-up call for authoritarian and populist rulers in the Global South, including India. Trump helped such rulers by overplaying religion and rightist ideology as electoral tactics, but that strategy has now backfired. Populist slogans such as MAGA and the Zionist design of a Greater Israel have survived through repression and war. But performance legitimacy is short-lived in a “multiplex world,” to use Prof. Amitav Acharya’s phrase.
The Arab Weekly has reported that Iran succeeded in bringing about regime change in America. A weakened Trump will face a choice between a negotiated exit and riskier escalation. It is worth recalling that, after the Republican Party’s miserable defeat in both houses, JD Vance commented on social media: “The real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.” In a sense, Netanyahu has lost two elections within a week: Israel’s parliamentary elections, which left his coalition in the minority, and the U.S. midterms, which produced senators who openly criticized the genocide in Gaza and called for cutting off arms aid to belligerent Israel. It is no coincidence that Trump has openly declared that he would end the $3.8 billion in annual military aid to his dear ally Netanyahu. At the same time, he defended the status quo with Iran—neither open conflict nor a peace agreement—in contrast to Netanyahu’s drumbeat for war:
“We seem to be getting everything we want.”
Antonio Pita has quoted the leading political commentator Nadav Eyal, who sees the current relationship between the United States and Tel Aviv as a “momentous generational shift.”
“Three generations of U.S. politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike, considered the alliance with Israel part of their identity,” Eyal wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth.
“Now a new generation is emerging in both parties that sees opposition to Israel as a component of its political identity. They are not yet a majority, but it will be very difficult to make them change their stance. No argument will convince them now. Netanyahu’s government sowed the wind and is reaping the storm.”
Yair Golan, leader of the Democrats—the only Jewish left-wing party opposed to Netanyahu—described the prime minister as “toxic both among Democrats and Republicans.”
The electoral response to U.S. involvement in wars in other countries might appear to suggest that American voters perceive their nation’s instrumental use of aggression negatively. But this is far from the truth. Public attitudes toward U.S. wars are a bundle of contradictions. It may be recalled that U.S. aggression in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan had collective endorsement in the past. The Cold War and the bloodbath of 9/11 served as catalysts. The public mood began to change as the United States got mired in these quicksands and the cost of war became heavier for voters to bear.
Iran has pinched the pockets of U.S. voters. This indicates that resistance to America’s wars abroad is not moral but utilitarian. Electoral reversals have not prevented American presidents—Democrats or Republicans—from investing in wars abroad. Barack Obama, who was critical of the Iraq War, did not stop targeted missions and strikes in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and other nations. Trump, a votary of transactional relationships, has stepped into the proverbial minefield in Iran. Hence, the midterm results are not a reflection on American policy for establishing world peace. They are rather a continuation of neocolonialism and imperialism, since the midterms were fought neither on the Venezuelan issue, nor on Cuban sanctions, nor on the annexation of Greenland by other means, nor on the genocide in Gaza, nor on stopping USAID to countries such as Sudan, nor on undermining the powers of the United Nations and cutting its funds.
The United States makes the world believe in the same lie. It seldom sees much use in the UN system that it itself imposed. Free-market competition and global rules were fine as long as they served its interests and privileges, but they are discarded when they threaten its hegemony. The carnival of setback is not going to end soon with the defeat of Trump’s Republican Party or Netanyahu’s Likud Party. Ecological collapse, uncontrolled AI, and global wars continue. If these are history’s real destinies, the defeats of Trump or Netanyahu will mean little. The student protest across the Europe reveals that Yankee American free market economy and its political grip is declining. The world is moving forward with promises of radical democracy with the support of resistance movements across the globe.
