Israel Election Keeps Iran Threat at Security Center

Israel’s election next week may change its leader, but regional policymakers and analysts expect the country’s approach to Iran to keep relying on military force. They also expect Palestinian statehood to remain a distant prospect. The campaign debate’s security doctrine centers on breaking Iran, keeping buffer zones beyond Israel’s borders and using force to deter enemies.

The assumptions behind that policy hardened after Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attacks on southern Israeli communities and the wars in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran. A win for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, backed by far-right coalition partners, could embolden him to intensify the war with Iran, tighten Israel’s grip on the occupied West Bank and push diplomacy further aside, the article reports.

Iran at the Center of Security Policy

Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud and its ultranationalist allies face an opposition led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar party. Analysts described the divide as one of degree, not direction: how aggressively Israel wages its wars, how much settlements expand in the West Bank and whether its leader chooses diplomacy.

Aviv Bushinsky, a former adviser to Netanyahu, said: “If Netanyahu is elected, he'll do whatever he thinks he wants to do. Expansion of the settlements will continue. The wars against Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah will continue.” He added: “What you see now is what you'll see after the election, maybe even more aggressively. As long as Iran is in such a situation, it's a waste of time talking about Palestine.”

Netanyahu has said Israel must put “prevention and offense over containment and defense,” including through pre-emptive strikes. He has also said he wants Israel to become a regional power and maximize its independence in armaments. US President Donald Trump praised Netanyahu as a “great warrior prime minister,” adding to expectations that Netanyahu would seek to finish the campaign against Tehran if he stayed in power.

Netanyahu says his ambitions go beyond containing Iran. “Completing the task means toppling the terrorist regime in Iran, the head of the venomous octopus,” he said in a speech this week. Analysts questioned whether anything short of a US-Israeli ground invasion would make Tehran abandon what it regards as core security interests in an existential fight. Michael Young of the Carnegie Middle East Center said: “This is a quagmire. The Iranians can outlast Trump.”

Regional Allies and Palestinian Policy

Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza have lost strength, but analysts said Iran-aligned groups have survived and the conflict could strengthen Tehran’s resolve to pursue a nuclear deterrent. Iran may be betting it can outlast its opponents while keeping pressure on through regional allies.

Palestinian analyst Ghassan Al-Khatib said Israeli parties were competing to project harder-line positions as public opinion shifted further right. “The substance of the policy remains the same: No to a Palestinian state and yes to further settlement expansion. On this, they are all in agreement,” he said. A government led by Netanyahu’s opponents might curb some settler violence or pursue settlement expansion less conspicuously, Al-Khatib said, but that would change style, not substance.

Michael Young said Israel’s security establishment and much of its political class share an outlook focused on confronting Iran, maintaining “forward defense” and preserving military deterrence. Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group said growing settler violence, Palestinian frustration and the lack of a “political horizon” had created combustible conditions, where even a minor trigger could spark a wider uprising.

Calls for a Political Alternative

Some Gulf leaders see Netanyahu as the Israeli politician most likely to keep Iran under pressure, even as they oppose policies they regard as expansionist. Abdulaziz Sager, chairman of the Gulf Research Center, said: “Netanyahu's policies in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon are damaging. As for Iran, a settlement is needed before the conflict escalates further. If Iran's role is not curbed, the region could be heading toward 50 years of Iranian hegemony.”

In a separate opinion article, Gershon Baskin, the Middle East director of the International Communities Organization and the co-head of the Alliance for Two States, argued that replacing Netanyahu alone wouldn’t end the conflict. He urged any new government to establish an independent state commission of inquiry into the failures of October 7, reverse policies of the outgoing government, restore democratic institutions’ independence and set out a strategy for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Baskin proposed a regional agreement under American leadership, with active participation by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan and other regional partners. He said it should combine normalization and regional integration with security guarantees, economic cooperation, Gaza reconstruction and a credible process toward an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. He also argued that Saudi-Israeli normalization couldn’t be separated from Palestinians’ right to self-determination.

For Gaza, Baskin proposed a transitional arrangement with a Palestinian technocratic administration, a professional Palestinian police force and an international stabilization presence. That would enable reconstruction, Israeli military withdrawal and an end to Hamas’ armed control. He said demilitarization, deradicalization, reconstruction, security guarantees and restoration of Palestinian civilian authority should move forward as interconnected obligations. He also called for early Palestinian presidential and parliamentary elections throughout the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, and urged Israel not to obstruct them.