How Israel’s election could shape next phase of Iran war

WASHINGTON — As Israel's Oct. 27 elections approach, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is vowing to resume the war effort to overthrow Iran’s government and claiming to have US President Donald Trump’s blessing to do so.

Most of Netanyahu's challengers agree the war should continue and have criticized the incumbent prime minister for halting the air campaign in coordination with the US. Only one leading opposition contender, former Israeli military chief Gadi Eisenkot, favors a more cautious approach.

But whoever wins and leads the next government, Israel's ability to sustain a renewed campaign against Tehran will depend heavily on Trump's willingness to back it, analysts and some Israeli political frontrunners say.

Trump endorsed Netanyahu a week before the vote, appearing to support the Israeli leader's pledge to finish the war. In front of reporters at Ovda Air Base in southern Israel on Monday, Netanyahu spoke with Trump by mobile phone.

“Donald, we have a job to finish. You said it, and we'll finish it together. We'll finish it. And no one else will do it,” Netanyahu said while holding an iPhone before the cameras.

Trump could be heard to reply, “I actually crafted that one myself. That wasn’t something that was put out by some guy writing something.”

The last-minute endorsement has fueled speculation that Netanyahu may have agreed to delay any more attacks on Iran until after the November US midterm elections in exchange for Trump's political support. With Republicans facing a difficult fight to retain control of Congress and the war's economic fallout weighing on the administration, Trump has strong domestic political reasons to be wary of another escalation.

The conflict has prompted Iranian retaliatory attacks spanning a dozen countries and driven global crude oil prices beyond $109 per barrel but has yet to decisively achieve any of Washington’s strategic objectives. 

A resumption of the US-Israeli air campaign before the midterms could further damage Republicans' electoral prospects.

Netanyahu met with US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at Ovda Air Base on Monday, part of an undisclosed tour of the region by the Pentagon chief. According to one person familiar with the visit, the meeting was intended to coordinate regional readiness and contingency planning.

“We are committed to completing the elimination of the Iranian regime,” Netanyahu’s office said in a statement Tuesday. “I have discussed this with Trump many times.”

A spokesperson for Hegseth’s office declined to confirm the trip or comment on any discussions.

How far is too far?

In vowing to continue the war in an effort to thwart Iran’s ability to rebuild its nuclear program, Netanyahu is well within the political consensus in Israel.

Three of the incumbent premier’s top challengers have openly advocated regime change in Tehran. Avigdor Lieberman, the former defense minister and head of the right-wing Yisrael Beytenu, has gone so far as to argue that Israel should overthrow the Islamic Republic’s leadership with or without Washington’s support. Lieberman has also outright rejected the prospect of diplomacy to restrain Tehran's nuclear program, to which US Vice President JD Vance earlier this month signaled Washington remains open.

Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has also called for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic’s leadership, as has his partner in the Beychad alliance, Yair Lapid, albeit while insisting on multilateralism, with Israel acting in concert with the US and Europe to apply economic and diplomatic pressure on Tehran. 

Among Israel’s top contenders for the premiership, only Eisenkot has cast regime change in Tehran as neither a feasible nor a desirable Israeli military objective. 

Eisenkot has repeatedly criticized Netanyahu for what the former general has described as an unclear wartime strategy driven by political self-interest and has cast doubt on whether resuming the air campaign alone can destroy what remains of Iran’s nuclear program.

Instead, Eisenkot has advocated a high threshold for renewing a full-scale military campaign against Iran, arguing it will only be strategically justified if Tehran makes a verifiable breakout toward nuclear weaponization. He has also pressed for lock-step coordination with US Central Command and against unilateral moves that could accelerate the decline in military support for Israel among voters in the US, a risk Eisenkot and Lapid have posited as a long-term strategic liability for Israel. 

Among the contenders, Eisenkot’s approach most closely aligns with the US’ strategic interests, given the inherent limits of the resuming the air campaign in Iran, Dennis Citrinowicz, a senior researcher on Iran at the Institute for National Security Studies in Israel, told Al-Monitor.

Yet the former IDF chief is relatively unknown in Trump’s inner circle — unlike Netanyahu, who has built an at times volatile yet personal rapport with the president over the past decade. Eisenkot is seen favorably at the Pentagon, having led Israel’s push for integration into CENTCOM’s Middle East air defense and intelligence-sharing networks while serving as IDF chief of staff between 2015 and 2019.

"Trump endorsed Netanyahu because he thinks he can control him," a regional former intelligence source told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity. "He prefers to work with the devil you know."

Regardless, if the opposition cleanly wins the Oct. 27 elections, even Iran hawks like Lieberman and Bennett are likely to focus first on urgent domestic issues such as undoing Netanyahu’s judicial reforms rather than immediately attacking Iran. 

It also remains unclear how Israel can achieve its unfulfilled objectives in Iran without at least a green light from the White House if not direct US military participation, said Citrinowicz.

“I don’t think Israel will act alone,” Citrinowicz, who previously headed the Iran branch of research and analysis at Israeli Defense Intelligence, told Al-Monitor.

But the chances of a unilateral Israeli strike against Iran may increase if the parties fail to gain a clear majority and struggle to form a government. The prospect of Netanyahu launching such an attack without an electoral mandate would be “unprecedented,” Citrinowicz said, but added, “The prime minister could decide to attack Iran with Trump’s green light, forcing a unity government. This is definitely possible.” 

The Financial Times reported Tuesday that earlier this month, Trump blocked a push by Netanyahu to launch a renewed joint attack on Iran. Speaking at an IDF training base in southern Israel on Wednesday, the prime minister claimed without evidence that Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei is “once again attempting to develop a nuclear bomb.”

Strategic divergence

In attempting to outflank his rivals by promising to overthrow Iran’s government with Washington’s support, Netanyahu risks getting ahead of the White House at a potentially decisive moment for Trump’s legacy in the upcoming midterms. 

Whether Trump may allow Israel to restart or expand the deeply unpopular conflict after the midterm elections remains to be seen. There have been no signs of obviously available ground forces thought capable of moving into Tehran, at least since Trump turned down a chance in March to authorize US Joint Special Operations Command to support a covert Mossad mission to send Kurdish fighters across the border from Iraq.

Yet a new opportunity for redoubled strikes may appear in mid to late November, when a third US aircraft carrier strike group is expected to arrive in the Arabian Sea to relieve one of the two US carriers already there.

Iran has repeatedly threatened to retaliate for any attacks on its energy infrastructure with similar attacks on neighboring countries. 

Such an escalation would likely strengthen the hand of opponents of the war in Congress while increasing pressure on Democrats to support symbolic measures to temporarily block major arms sales to Israel. As president, Trump will almost certainly be able to block such resolutions.

Leading Democratic lawmakers say they have additional leverage, however. In June, the Pentagon requested some $80 billion in supplemental funding to cover projected unanticipated costs of the war. The full estimate has not yet been made public, according to a letter signed by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and others to CENTCOM commander Adm. Brad Cooper this week.

US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who heads the Middle East subcommittee on the Senate’s foreign relations panel, has argued that if Democrats take control both houses in November, they should hold up next year’s defense spending bill unless it contains a measure that would end US involvement in the Iran war.

“We’re going to have an ability to decide whether or not we’re going to fund this war,” Murphy, who sits on the defense appropriations subcommittee, told reporters on Oct. 8 after visiting the Gulf.