Israeli election results raise prospect of new Iran attack

A renewed attack on Iran is becoming a strong possibility following Israel’s elections, experts have told The National, with a co-ordinated assault alongside the US potentially starting after America's midterm polls next week.

Winning the most seats in the Israeli election has given current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu much greater motivation to launch another attack on the Tehran regime with the hope of toppling it, despite the lack of strategic interest.

To avoid further increases in fuel prices, US President Donald Trump could order air strikes in the days after the midterm elections.

But there is “no Israeli national security strategic reason” to restart the war with Iran, said former British military intelligence officer Lynette Nusbacher, and the only purpose would be for “a party political motivation”.

Mr Netanyahu has stated that Israel faces an existential threat because Iran continues to work towards a nuclear bomb. He graphically illustrated this during the election period by posting an AI-generated image on X of a nuclear bomb detonation over Tel Aviv.

Judging by the electorate’s vote, Mr Netanyahu is still regarded in Israel as the best person to lead the country into war.

“I think after the midterms [an attack] is very much a possibility,” said Calev Ben-Dor, a geopolitical analyst based in Jerusalem.

Show caption: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Getty

A motivation for Mr Trump is that Iran “thinks they won the war” and is demanding reparations while having a partial stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz, greatly inflating global oil prices, Mr Ben-Dor said. Another factor is that the US President will want a tough agreement on the nuclear issue.

“We might assume that Trump is not going to do some sort of average nuclear deal with Iran,” he added. “Netanyahu's motivation is to finish a job that remains unfinished, but there's obviously a lot of lot of moving parts.”

Before and after Israel’s inconclusive election on Tuesday, Mr Netanyahu was already making threats “in clear language” that if there was another operation the military had to achieve regime change, said Richard Pater, director of the British-Israeli Bicom think tank.

“The military needs to tell the political echelon if it's a pipe dream and if it even can be done at all,” he explained. There is also a moment of opportunity now for Mr Netanyahu to “finish the job that he has seen as his life’s work” to overthrow the Tehran government, he added.

Show caption: An AI-generated image showing a nuclear bomb exploding in Te…

There are questions over whether a caretaker government could carry out an attack and whether the Israeli military would support it. “If we hit Iran for 38 days and the regime was still standing before, what do we hope to achieve now?” said an Israeli security source.

While negotiations for a new Israeli administration will soon commence, with a unity government of right-wing Zionist parties the potential outcome, Mr Netanyahu also understands that an attack has to happen “whilst he has such a partner as Trump in the White House [and] that this is a two-year window to finish it”, Mr Pater said.

A unity government will also affect the record number of Arab Israeli politicians, pushing any talk of a coalition with anti-Netanyahu parties into the long grass.

Air war?

Any war, analysts argue, must have “achievable goals” and if that means targeting its infrastructure to instigate an upheaval, there needs to be a proper plan. Furthermore, Gulf states will need to be consulted, as any attack is likely to invite a barrage of Iranian missiles towards their infrastructure.

Air power alone also has little likelihood of enacting regime change, said Dr Nusbacher. “They will not cause people to change their government, and we've seen that the Iranian state is configured precisely to withstand this kind of attack.”

Show caption: Air strikes in Tehran. Air power alone is unlikely to achiev…

There is also no indication from regime hardliners that they would surrender or “put themselves up against a wall and let somebody shoot them”. Dr Nusbacher added that the problems Middle East countries might have with the regime “are not going to be solved by application of armed force in the short term”.

There was also no American political appetite to sacrifice large numbers of troops in a land operation.

Mr Pater also warned against a “mowing the lawn” operation to curtail the nuclear enrichment or missile rebuilding because there was no data that this might lead to “economic collapse”.

“This has not brought the people out on to the streets, so there needs to be much better co0ordination,” he added.