Netanyahu May Strike Iran Before Midterms

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now has a short window to resume military strikes against Iran. The recent election results granted his bloc a stronger performance than predicted, yet it remains in the minority. He lacks a clear path to form a government without an agreement with Gadi Eisenkot, the leader of the Yashar party. This political stalemate creates an opening for a new campaign against Tehran before the US midterm elections on November 3.

Netanyahu weighed a renewed offensive in recent weeks. President Donald Trump and IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir opposed the move. Trump opposed a strike prior to the US midterms, while Zamir objected to an attack before the Israeli vote held on October 27. Both objections are now temporary. Zamir’s opposition was tied to the election date, and Trump’s was tied to the midterms.

Trump has signaled a desire to resume strikes on Iran shortly after the midterms. In his endorsement of Netanyahu, he expressed a wish for Israel’s involvement again. If Eisenkot had won the head-to-head contest between blocs as polls predicted, he likely would have formed a government before the midterms. In that scenario, it would have been difficult for Netanyahu to order a new attack. Instead, Avigdor Liberman, leader of Yisrael Beytenu and an ally of Eisenkot, will not begin serious coalition talks until Friday when final results are in.

Liberman must choose between a deal with Israeli-Arab parties, a deal with Netanyahu, or a second election. Any of these paths requires lengthy negotiations over terms and ministries. Such talks typically take weeks or months. The four days between Friday and the midterms are insufficient for these processes. Consequently, Netanyahu would likely be free to attack if Trump wants it or does not block it.

Zamir supports an attack under specific conditions. He favors action if Iran is about to strike Israel, or if Trump restarts the war first with full US backing. He is also ready to act if Iran rebuilds its threat capabilities too quickly, though this has not happened. He opposed acting before the election to prevent an Iranian missile counterstrike from disrupting voting and to avoid suggestions that the attack was meant to help Netanyahu. With the vote over, nothing bars a strike, but Zamir is not rushing toward one.

Zamir does not view Tehran as much closer to a significant nuclear or ballistic missile threat. US-Israeli strikes in June 2026 and early 2026 set back both capabilities by years. The main obstacle for Netanyahu is therefore Trump. The US president avoided an attack before the midterms because the Iran war is dragging down his poll numbers and those of the Republican Party. After the midterms, Trump will be less constrained as he cannot seek a third term.

Most of Trump’s top advisers oppose a return to war. Some believe a few days of fighting might loosen Iran's position, while others note Iran has refused to crack since February. Advisers have also warned that Tehran has kept firing even after a US ceasefire, meaning a new round could last longer than a few days. Trump could instead continue wearing Iran down economically. He has swung between economic pressure, threats of war, and retreat several times, including in August and earlier in October, which likely weakened his threats in Iranian eyes.

Timing would suit Netanyahu if Trump favors striking. A war focus could shift national attention to where he prefers it just as Eisenkot's camp tries to unite. It might be harder for Eisenkot’s allies to reach a deal with Israeli-Arab parties while missiles fall on Israelis. They might also be more open to dealing with Netanyahu if Iran displaces October 7 and haredi military service as the main topics of public debate. A strike could still be justified as a way to extract nuclear concessions, and many Israelis would say the country should not miss a chance to act alongside the US.

Netanyahu would need more than vague claims of new Iranian progress to justify a third round of conflict during coalition talks. It would be difficult to argue that time is running out after he recently removed the nuclear and missile threats. How he explains a new conflict will determine its legitimacy among the wider public.