Trump, Netanyahu political troubles and why Uganda should be watching closely
Uganda cannot determine the outcome of American congressional politics, Israeli coalition negotiations or the strategic calculations of Iran. However, it can prepare for the economic consequences of decisions made in those capitals, writes Nelson Mandela Muhoozi
Nelson Mandela Muhoozi. (File)
_________________
OPINION
The political fortunes of United States President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are entering a period of uncertainty, with developments in Washington and Jerusalem carrying implications that extend far beyond their respective borders.
For Uganda and other African countries, the unfolding political developments deserve attention not simply because of the strategic relationship between the United States and Israel, but because of their potential consequences for global oil markets, international trade, inflation and economic stability.
Two important political events have brought this relationship into sharper focus. In the United States, the November 3, 2026 midterm elections have handed Democrats control of both chambers of Congress, dealing a major political setback to Trump’s Republican Party.
In Israel, Netanyahu’s political bloc has emerged from the October 27 general election with the largest number of seats but without the parliamentary majority required to form a government independently.
The two developments do not mean that either leader has immediately lost power. Trump remains president until January 2029, while Netanyahu continues as caretaker prime minister as Israel’s political parties negotiate the formation of a new government. However, both leaders now face a more complicated domestic political environment.
For Trump, the loss of congressional control means that advancing his legislative agenda will become more difficult. Democrats will have greater powers to scrutinise his administration, investigate government decisions and challenge policies through Congress.
For Netanyahu, the election has exposed the difficulties of maintaining political dominance in an increasingly divided parliament. His bloc secured 53 of the 120 seats in the Knesset, while the main opposition bloc won 48 and Arab-led parties secured 19. A government requires at least 61 seats to command a parliamentary majority.
The significance of these developments becomes clearer when examined against the backdrop of the conflict involving Israel, Iran and the wider Middle East.
A changing relationship between Washington and Jerusalem
The United States remains Israel’s most important strategic ally, providing military assistance, intelligence cooperation and diplomatic support. The relationship has survived changes in American administrations and disagreements over regional policy.
However, the political interests of Trump and Netanyahu do not always align. Trump must increasingly consider the concerns of American voters, particularly the cost of living, military expenditure and the economic consequences of prolonged involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts.
Netanyahu, on the other hand, must consider Israel’s security priorities, domestic political survival and the demands of parties that could determine whether he remains in government. These competing pressures could complicate their cooperation, particularly over Iran.
Trump has an interest in containing regional instability and pursuing diplomatic arrangements that protect American interests. Netanyahu’s government has consistently treated Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities as major security threats.
This is important because decisions made in Washington and Jerusalem can influence the direction of the conflict, the security of neighbouring countries and the stability of international markets.
Reuters reported on October 28 that Netanyahu’s election victory in terms of parliamentary seats had not translated into a governing majority, leaving uncertainty over who would lead Israel and how the next government would approach regional challenges.
The political uncertainty also comes as Trump’s advisers consider how to advance American diplomatic priorities in Gaza, Lebanon and the wider Middle East.
Why the Middle East matters to Uganda’s economy
For many Ugandans, American elections and Israeli coalition negotiations may appear distant from everyday economic concerns. However, the connection becomes apparent when one considers the importance of the Middle East to global energy supplies and international shipping.
Oil is a major input in Uganda’s transport, manufacturing, agriculture and electricity-generation sectors. Changes in international crude oil prices can eventually affect the prices of petroleum products, transport services, manufactured goods and agricultural inputs.
One of the most important strategic points in this equation is the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow shipping passage between Iran and Oman through which a substantial share of the world’s internationally traded oil passes.
Any military confrontation that threatens shipping through this passage can trigger uncertainty in international energy markets. Even without a complete closure, threats to vessels, rising insurance premiums and higher shipping costs can increase the cost of moving oil and other commodities.
Uganda, which depends on imported petroleum products, is exposed to these international price movements. An increase in global oil prices can translate into higher pump prices, raising the cost of transporting food from rural production areas to urban markets.
Businesses may also face higher operating costs, which can eventually be passed on to consumers through increased prices. For households already struggling with the cost of living, such developments could create additional pressure.
The consequences extend beyond petroleum. Higher shipping and insurance costs can affect imported machinery, industrial inputs, fertilisers and other goods that African economies need to sustain production.
This is why Uganda should not treat developments in the Middle East as a matter of foreign policy alone. They are also an economic concern.
Africa must look beyond the immediate conflict
The unfolding political situation presents an important lesson for African governments: economic resilience requires preparing for external shocks, including those arising from geopolitical tensions.
The country therefore needs to strengthen its capacity to manage external economic shocks. This includes improving strategic fuel planning, diversifying energy sources, investing in efficient transport systems and strengthening regional trade arrangements that can reduce dependence on expensive imports.
Uganda should also pay closer attention to the implications of global instability for its agricultural sector. Higher fuel prices increase the cost of operating tractors, transporting produce, processing food and distributing agricultural inputs.
For a country where agriculture remains a major source of livelihoods and export earnings, these indirect effects deserve serious consideration.
The government and private sector should also monitor international freight rates, commodity prices and currency movements to identify emerging pressures before they translate into higher domestic costs.
What happens if political uncertainty deepens?
The next few months will be important for both countries. In the United States, the Democratic-controlled Congress will have greater influence over legislation, government oversight and the confirmation of certain presidential appointments. Although Trump retains executive authority over foreign policy, congressional opposition could complicate aspects of his domestic and international agenda.
In Israel, the outcome of coalition negotiations will determine whether Netanyahu can secure another government or whether the country moves towards a different political arrangement or another election.
However, a change in Israeli leadership would not automatically transform the country’s security policy towards Iran, Gaza or the Palestinians. Important national security positions have support across sections of Israel's political establishment.
The more immediate concern is whether Washington and Jerusalem can maintain a common approach to regional security while responding to their respective domestic political pressures.
For Uganda, the outcome matters because prolonged instability in the Middle East could undermine global trade confidence, increase energy costs and complicate economic planning.
As such, Uganda must watch the economics, not just the politics. The developments involving Trump and Netanyahu demonstrate how domestic political decisions in powerful countries can have consequences for economies thousands of kilometres away.
Uganda cannot determine the outcome of American congressional politics, Israeli coalition negotiations or the strategic calculations of Iran. However, it can prepare for the economic consequences of decisions made in those capitals.
As the country pursues industrialisation, expands agricultural production and prepares for commercial oil production, economic planning must increasingly account for geopolitical risks.
The important question is therefore not simply whether Trump will maintain his political influence or whether Netanyahu will remain Israel's prime minister.
It is whether the decisions made by their governments will contribute to greater stability or deepen the uncertainty already affecting international markets.
The writer is a multimedia journalist with The New Vision