Is this the beginning of the end for Trump? Can he still shape the Middle East?

Dubai: Donald Trump has spent more than a decade dominating American politics and reshaping the world’s expectations of US leadership. But after a sweeping midterm election defeat, a new question is confronting Washington and the Middle East: Is the Trump era beginning to fade, even as the president retains the power to wage war, negotiate peace and redraw regional alliances?

Democrats’ capture of both houses of Congress has dealt Trump a major political setback, fuelled partly by public anger over the Iran war and soaring living costs.

Yet the implications extend beyond American politics. From Tehran to Riyadh and Tel Aviv, governments must now assess whether Trump’s weakened domestic position will alter his decisions — or make his next moves harder to anticipate.

Writing in The New York Times, chief White House correspondent Peter Baker described the election as a turning point for a president who has dominated the national stage for more than a decade.

Trump repeatedly urged voters to treat the midterms as a referendum on himself. The results, however, suggested that his political appeal was no longer sufficient to protect Republican candidates.

Susan Glasser, writing in The New Yorker, similarly examined whether the elections marked the beginning of Trump’s political decline.

The election setback has also raised questions about whether Trump is becoming a lame-duck president — a leader whose political influence is diminishing as his final term approaches its end. But while his authority in Washington may be increasingly challenged, he still commands the world’s most powerful military and retains considerable influence over global affairs.

But neither an electoral setback nor a divided Washington necessarily diminishes America’s military capabilities or Trump’s authority to deploy them.

That distinction matters enormously to the Middle East.

For Tehran, Trump’s domestic troubles could appear to offer fresh diplomatic leverage.

The president acknowledged that the Iran conflict contributed to Republican losses, although he defended his military campaign and blamed other factors for the defeat.

Iranian negotiators may calculate that Washington now has greater incentives to secure an agreement that reopens the Strait of Hormuz, stabilises energy markets and reduces American fuel prices.

But such calculations carry risks.

Reuters reported in September that senior Trump aides had sought to prevent major escalation before the elections, partly because of the war’s political unpopularity. Officials were also considering renewed military pressure after voting.

With the elections over, that immediate constraint has disappeared.

The latest American strikes near the Strait of Hormuz underline how quickly diplomacy and military confrontation can collide.

For Gulf governments, Trump’s political setback presents a different challenge.

The UAE, Saudi Arabia and other regional countries have repeatedly advocated diplomacy, warning that renewed fighting could threaten energy infrastructure, international shipping and regional stability.

At the recent Manama Dialogue, UAE presidential diplomatic adviser Anwar Gargash said the country hoped for a diplomatic breakthrough but remained prepared for the worst.

A weakened president might become more receptive to diplomatic arguments, particularly if a settlement delivers economic benefits.

Alternatively, Washington could continue using military pressure to extract concessions from Tehran.

For Gulf capitals, the practical question is whether American policy will become more predictable or more difficult to navigate during Trump’s final two years.

Israel faces its own uncertainties.

Trump’s close relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been a defining feature of Washington’s regional approach.

Yet on election day, Trump announced plans to end roughly $4 billion in annual American assistance to Israel after 2026, while continuing weapons sales.

The announcement raised questions about the future of the relationship, although the existing aid agreement runs until 2028.

Democratic control of Congress could also intensify scrutiny of US military assistance and Washington’s involvement in regional conflicts.

Israeli leaders must therefore consider not only Trump’s remaining authority but also the changing political environment surrounding American support.

Perhaps the most consequential change is the approaching end of Trump’s presidency.

Constitutionally barred from seeking another elected term, Trump will leave office in January 2029.

His political influence could remain substantial, but foreign governments must increasingly consider the possibility that a future administration will pursue different priorities.

That creates a delicate diplomatic balance: Maintaining relations with a president who still commands extraordinary power while preparing for an uncertain political transition.

Trump has repeatedly recovered from setbacks that appeared capable of ending his career. His allies argue that his influence over the Republican Party remains formidable.

And the president has already signalled that he is willing to work with Democrats, even while threatening to veto legislation he opposes.

The midterms have changed Trump’s political standing, but they have not settled the future of American policy in the Middle East.

Iran must decide whether to compromise or maintain its demands. Israel faces questions about the durability of American support. Gulf governments continue seeking regional stability while preparing for renewed confrontation.

Trump may be entering the final chapter of his presidency, but the Middle East could still be profoundly shaped by the decisions he makes before leaving the White House.

The question is no longer simply how much political power Trump has lost at home — but how he will exercise the considerable power he still holds abroad.