The sweeping Democratic victory in Tuesday’s US midterm elections has intensified pressure on President Donald Trump’s administration to reconsider its war on Iran and Washington’s longstanding relationship with Israel, the Financial Times reported on Thursday, pointing to growing opposition to both policies across the American political landscape.
According to the newspaper, US Vice-President JD Vance directly linked the Republican defeat to the war, writing on X that “the reason we lost is the war.” The Financial Times described his remarks as a belated attempt to distance himself from Trump’s decision to attack Iran, while also raising the possibility that the administration could eventually step back from the conflict.
One of the things the data analysts on our side obsessed over was "composition"—whether the electorate looked close enough to 2024 for Republicans to win. And despite polls that showed a Democrat blowout, the data kept on telling us the same story: in some states turnout was merely OK, in other states it was downright amazing, and in no state was it catastrophic. There was a genuine sense of optimism on our team: our people were showing up. So, I asked the smartest data guy I know, does that mean we’re going to shock the world? "No," he told me. "We might do better than the polls suggest. But the data is telling us that a lot of Trump/Vance 2024 voters are pissed and planning to vote for the other guys. Our voters are turning out, but they may not vote for us." Well, that looks prophetic now. Our voters did show up. In Florida, for example, the electorate was 9 points more Republican than Democrat, just a couple points worse than 2024. Undoubtedly there were places we could have done better on turnout. But the main problem is not turnout. The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026. There will be a lot of infighting and arguing over what happened and why that is. One of the pollsters I really respect told me that our economic messaging wasn’t sharp enough down the stretch. I’m sure that’s true. But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone. Another pollster—one of the smartest people I know in politics, told me yesterday we’d lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what would cause them to come back on our team. The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses were: 1) End the war 2) Focus on cost of living/inflation 3) Put America First 4) Change our relationship to Israel Our voters showed up. And the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats. This is according to a pollster who nailed the results. While many spent Monday attacking Rachel Campos Duffy for calling for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, it turns out her political advice was sound. (She’s also a great person.) In the next few months, there’s going to be a lot of gaslighting. Expect to hear any number of establishment politicians say the solution to our woes is amnesty. I’m open to the idea that we should change enforcement—by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. But anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you. The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night. If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that’s at least honest. But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there. I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, “I told you so”: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview. To the people who are just pissed at the results, you should be. Let’s take that anger and get back to the work of saving our country.
— JD Vance (@JDVance) November 4, 2026
Pressure on Iran War Policy
The newspaper reported that Democrats are set to take control of both chambers of Congress when the new legislature convenes in January, giving them greater leverage to challenge the administration’s military policy and its support for ‘Israel’. The incoming majority is expected to include progressive lawmakers demanding an end to unrestricted US aid to ‘Israel’ and an end to the war on Iran.
Citing Democratic Senator Peter Welch, the Financial Times said opposition to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government had become a “consensus position of opposition and distrust” within the Democratic Party.
Welch told the newspaper that the Israeli role in the Gaza war and its perceived influence on Washington’s decision to attack Iran had fundamentally undermined the traditional foundations of US-Israeli relations.
The Financial Times also highlighted the political impact of the issue in Michigan, where Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed won after campaigning against US military and financial support for Israel, linking it to the rising cost of living and the war on Iran.
According to the report, Trump had sought to counter the electoral backlash by announcing on the morning of the election that Washington would end its annual $3.8 billion in assistance to ‘Israel’. He described the aid as a political liability, saying ‘Israel’ did not need it. However, the newspaper noted that it remained unclear whether Trump would follow through on the proposal.
‘Israel’ Ties Face Growing Scrutiny
On the war itself, the Financial Times reported that Trump told the newspaper on Tuesday he had no immediate plans to launch another attack on Iran, despite the latest US strikes and his earlier warning that Washington remained ready to hit the country again.
The newspaper noted that a Democratic-controlled Congress could place additional pressure on the administration, given Congress’s constitutional authority over war and federal spending, even though the president directs US foreign policy. It added that Democratic lawmakers could seek to compel Trump to end the conflict and reconsider military assistance to ‘Israel’.
The Financial Times further reported that the election had exposed growing divisions within the Republican Party over its close alignment with ‘Israel’. Vance, who represents the party’s more isolationist wing, has previously expressed skepticism about the relationship. His latest remarks prompted criticism from pro-Israel Republican donor Clifford Asness, who accused the vice-president of trying to “blame the Jews.”
The shift in public opinion was also reflected in a July Pew Research Center poll cited by the newspaper, which found that 62 percent of Americans held an unfavorable view of the Israeli government. The figure included an overwhelming majority of Democrats and a majority of Republicans under the age of 39.
The Financial Times concluded that the election fallout could extend well beyond the confrontation with Iran, potentially reshaping Washington’s approach to Israel and its longstanding military and financial commitments to the country.
Source: Al-Manar English Website