As the dust settles on two epochal elections in Israel and the US, the very future of the strategic and military alliance between the two nations may be up for grabs in a way rarely if ever seen before.
In Jerusalem, Gadi Eisenkot has now been asked by President Herzog to attempt to form the next government and take over from Benjamin Netanyahu.
Bibi has long put his access to the White House at the heart of his identity and authority as a prime minister safeguarding the nation’s future.
But the Yashar leader seeking to replace him has been keen to brandish his own credentials as a safe pair of hands in which to entrust Israel’s very own special relationship with America.
Days ago, Eisenkot pledged “under my leadership, we will renew and deepen that partnership”.
Yet who exactly will that American partner be, after the almighty earthquake that has destroyed the Republican hold on congress?
Donald Trump with Benjamin Netanyahu at Ben Gurion Airport in October 2025 (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)Getty Images
There has been shock that an avowed anti-Zionist, Abdul El-Sayed, is now Democrat senator for Michigan.
But it is the more moderate winners of the ‘Blue Wave’ that swept across America in the mid-terms who most clearly spell trouble ahead.
Triumphant Georgia senator Jon Ossoff is being touted as the possible first Jewish president of the US: yet even he has called for restrictions on arms sales to Israel.
Nor is the Trump administration redoubtable ally it had seemed be in the early months of the year, when US and Israel forces together launched an unprecedented operation against Iran that for a time raised hopes of regime change.
The war may still rise up again, but for now there is an uncomfortable simmering level of conflict that so far has left the Islamic Republic in place, menacing the Strait of Hormuz and attacking Gulf states through the Houthis and other proxy forces.
The conflict has provided any political capital for Donald Trump – in fact the opposite, with the rising price of gas blamed on the conflict believed to be a major factor in the Republican rout that risks leaving the final two years of the administration as a ‘lame duck’ presidency facing a hostile Democrat congress.
No wonder he has now said more attacks on Iran are “unlikely”.
The president had already made an extraordinary announcement ahead of voters going to the polls last Tuesday, saying he had reached an agreement with Netanyahu to end approximately $4 billion in annual US military assistance to Israel after this year.
Perhaps this was a piece of political theatre designed to appeal to an American electorate increasingly sceptical of foreign spending.
Alternatively, it might signal the beginning of a genuine attempt to enforce greater independence from the US for Israel.
Opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot (left) and President Isaac Herzog in Jerusalem on Sunday (Ilia YEFIMOVICH / AFP via Getty Images)AFP via Getty Images
So now the question may be asked: how much does Bibi’s reputation as the indispensable statesman who knows Washington better than anyone stand up to scrutiny?
Or has he imperilled Israel’s interests by being too reliant on Washington in these politically uncertain times?
Netanyahu had already publicly proposed phasing out American military assistance over a decade. His supporters would argue that reducing reliance on US taxpayers strengthens Israel’s sovereignty and establishes a more equal relationship between the two countries.
But what to make of this pointed observation by Vice President JD Vance back in June? "Over the last three months, two-thirds of the defensive weapons that have protected your homeland have been built by American hands and paid for by American tax dollars."
Trump’s number two is increasingly frosty towards the Jewish state, and his remark suggests Israeli talk of self-reliance must soon translate from rhetoric into action, before it’s too late.
US Navy F/A-18E Super Hornet landing on aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in Operation Epic Fury against Iran on February 28, 2026 (Getty Images)Getty Images
But though Israel undoubtedly has the wherewithal to fill in the financial gap, replacing the US’s diplomatic clout is another challenge altogether.
A source told the JC: "Without American support, Israel could face far greater international isolation and legal and diplomatic pressure.
"The measure of a strong Israeli prime minister should not simply be how loudly they confront Washington, but how effectively they protect Israeli interests while preserving the American alliance."
Netanyahu did repeatedly demonstrate his willingness to confront American presidents, notably Barack Obama over the Iranian nuclear agreement.
But even during that contentious period, Israel obtained a ten-year, $38 billion military assistance agreement from Obama’s administration.
Bibi’s supports would point to this as proof that he could challenge Washington publicly while preserving the foundations of the relationship, even while Israel's military capabilities are tied to American funding and procurement arrangements.
Nitsana Darshan- Leitner, President of Shurat HaDin Israel law centre, recalls the moment in Obama’s final weeks in power when he allowed the United Nations to condemn Israel’s settlements as a “flagrant violation” of international law.
She told the JC: “We have not forgotten what happened in December 2016, when the Obama administration refused to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, allowing it to pass in the final days of Obama’s presidency.
“That decision demonstrated just how quickly American protection can disappear when the White House turns its back on Israel.
“Now, we are beginning to feel the wolves circling once again. The international forces seeking to isolate, punish, and delegitimize Israel are watching closely, waiting for an opportunity to strike.
“Israel cannot afford to take America’s diplomatic protection for granted.”
Within the Republican party, Vance has identified the Iran war and America's relationship with Israel as turn-offs for formerly loyal voters.
Even the warmest relationship with a president cannot guarantee American political consensus supporting Israel will remain intact. A change of prime minister could be disadvantageous.
The source told the JC: "Gadi Eisenkot should not automatically be regarded as weaker simply because his diplomatic style might be less confrontational.”
Perhaps a new prime minister could even pursue broadly similar security policies while handling relations with Washington more effectively.
Indeed, it may be tempting to regard Eisenkot as offering the possibility of a dramatic break with Netanyahu's approach, but the reality may not be so conclusive.
Eisenkot served as IDF chief of staff and participated in wartime decision-making alongside Netanyahu; both men have laser focus on the country's vulnerabilities.
A source told the JC: "Their approaches towards the Palestinians, Gaza, Iran and other regional threats may be closer than many international commentators expect.
"There may be differences in tactics, diplomatic priorities and political language, but these should not automatically be confused with differences in fundamental security doctrine."
Post-October 7, public expectations, military assessments and the continuing threats facing Israel will constrain whoever is prime minister.
Yet there are marked contrasts, not least Eisenkot having to make the rapid transition from military leadership to politics.
A source said: "The biggest difference between a Netanyahu-led government and a potential Eisenkot-led coalition may not be security policy, but political tone.”
Netanyahu's dependence on Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich has repeatedly complicated Israel's relations with some traditional allies. The rhetoric and policies of the two far-right ministers have generated international controversy that makes it harder for friendly governments to defend Israel's broader position.
A coalition involving figures such as Yair Lapid, Naftali Bennett and Eisenkot would almost certainly present a different political face to the world. It might pursue similarly robust security policies, but with a different vocabulary, a different diplomatic approach and perhaps a greater willingness to avoid unnecessary public confrontations with allies.
Nitsana suggests: “Perhaps an Eisenkot-led government would enjoy a brief honeymoon, a hundred days of grace and diplomatic fraternity. But how long would it last before the knives came out again, the condemnations resumed, and the international pressure intensified?
“The same voices that today curse Netanyahu would soon be denouncing his political successors. The targets and names might change, but the hostility would remain.”
But don’t expect a magical solution to Israel's international difficulties, whoever takes power.
The criticism directed at Israel concerns substantive questions that are almost certainly with us for the foreseeable future: the conduct of military operations in Gaza, settlement policy, the future of the Palestinians and the wider direction of Israeli security policy.
“It is naive to pretend that having Bibi Netanyahu in power or out of office will fundamentally change Israel’s international standing,” says Nitsana.
She adds: “Does anyone seriously believe that an Israeli government led by Gadi Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, or Avigdor Lieberman would sit idly by while Iran races toward acquiring nuclear weapons?
“Would any responsible Israeli leader refrain from striking Tehran when faced with an existential threat?
“The answer is obvious. Israel’s fundamental security imperatives do not change with the identity of its prime minister.”
And what of the US? Sources tell the JC: “Nor would an Eisenkot-led government necessarily find Washington easier to manage. American presidents have their own domestic pressures, strategic interests and political priorities.
“A less confrontational Israeli leader might enjoy a more cordial reception, but that would not guarantee agreement on the issues that matter most.”
The real test of the next prime minister will be whether he can pursue Israel's fundamental security policies while retaining the necessary degree of international support.
As things stand now, Eisenkot has the opportunity to try and take the role, but President Isaac Herzog's decision to give him the first opportunity to form a government does not mean Bibi has played his last card.
Should the Yashar leader fail to cobble together a workable coalition, Netanyahu could find himself back in the picture, able to again claim no one else can govern Israeli with his opponents divided.
It would hardly be the first time his political obituary had been written prematurely.
Whether it is the case that reports of Bibi’s demise have been exaggerated remains to be seen.
To get more news, click here to sign up for our free daily newsletter.