Israel's Iran Strategy Likely to Hold After Election

Israel's election next week may replace its prime minister, but regional policymakers and analysts say the country’s strategy toward Iran won’t change. Military force is expected to remain the preferred response, while Palestinian statehood stays a distant prospect. The roots of that approach go back to October 7, 2023, when Hamas attacked southern Israeli communities. As the third anniversary approaches, assumptions hardened by the assault and reinforced by wars in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran now guide Israel’s political class.

The Security Doctrine

Israel’s security doctrine rests on three pillars: breaking Iran, maintaining buffer zones beyond its borders, and using force to deter enemies. Michael Young of the Carnegie Middle East Center 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.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has put it bluntly. Israel must prioritize “prevention and offense over containment and defense,” he said, including pre-emptive strikes, while making Israel a regional power and maximizing its independence in armaments. This week, he went further. “Completing the task means toppling the terrorist regime in Iran, the head of the venomous octopus,” he said in a speech. US President Donald Trump has praised Netanyahu as a “great warrior prime minister.”

The contest pits Netanyahu’s Likud and its ultranationalist allies against an opposition led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar party. Analysts describe the divide as one of degree, not direction: how aggressively to wage wars, how far settlement expansion should go, and whether a leader chooses diplomacy. Aviv Bushinsky, a former Netanyahu adviser, said the wars against Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah will continue if Netanyahu wins. “As long as Iran is in such a situation, it’s a waste of time talking about Palestine,” he said.

The Regional Threat

Iran isn’t folding. 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. Iran may be betting it can outlast its opponents while pressing through regional allies. “This is a quagmire. The Iranians can outlast Trump,” Young said. Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza have weakened, but Iran-aligned groups have survived, analysts said, and the conflict could harden Tehran’s resolve to pursue a nuclear deterrent.

Some Gulf leaders view 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, criticized Netanyahu’s policies in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon as damaging. On Iran, he warned that a settlement is needed before escalation. “If Iran’s role is not curbed, the region could be heading toward 50 years of Iranian hegemony,” he said.

Diplomatic Dead End

Palestinian analyst Ghassan Al-Khatib said Israeli parties were competing to project harder-line positions as public opinion shifted 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 expand settlements less conspicuously, he said, but that would change style, not substance. Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group warned that growing settler violence, Palestinian frustration and the lack of a “political horizon” had created combustible conditions in the West Bank.

Gershon Baskin, co-head of the Alliance for Two States, argued in a separate opinion article that replacing Netanyahu alone wouldn’t end the conflict. He proposed a regional agreement combining normalization with security guarantees, Gaza reconstruction and an irreversible process toward Palestinian statehood. His plan for Gaza calls for a technocratic Palestinian administration, a professional police force and an international stabilization presence, with demilitarization, deradicalization and an end to Hamas’ armed control treated as interconnected obligations.

Baskin also pointed to a Palestinian problem. He called President Mahmoud Abbas’ recent decision to postpone Palestinian elections troubling, noting Palestinians have gone approximately two decades without national elections and a generation has reached adulthood without voting. The postponement, he wrote, perpetuates a system that has lost legitimacy. Any workable peace requires Palestinian leaders with democratic legitimacy, he argued, chosen by Palestinians themselves. “Israel will never have security until Palestinians have freedom, and Palestinians will never have freedom until Israel has security,” he wrote.

Why This Matters: Whoever wins next week inherits the same strategic problem: an Iranian regime that analysts believe can outlast its adversaries and an axis of allied groups that has bent without breaking. Israeli caution reflects the experience of October 7 and three wars, not just one leader’s temperament. The Palestinian side of any diplomatic track remains stalled. Abbas has postponed elections, leaving a leadership without a fresh mandate and a Gaza where Hamas retains armed control. Gulf voices warn that unchecked Iranian influence carries decades-long costs. Without a legitimate Palestinian partner and an Iran under pressure, security arrangements may be the only workable path.