Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been thinking about bombing Iran’s nuclear program for a long time. But will it be enough to secure his political future, much less his legacy?
Amid lagging poll numbers, Netanyahu has been privately lamenting “without victory in Gaza, we have nothing to go to elections with.” His controversial efforts to exempt ultra-Orthodox Jews from conscription have only made things worse. An accommodation reached on June 11 kept his coalition intact but was described by military reservists and their families as a capitulation to the draft dodgers.
Halting Iran’s nuclear ambitions has, famously, been Netanyahu’s obsession since the 1990s. Despite his reputation for being risk-averse, and despite potential pushback from Washington, Netanyahu’s willingness to use force was hiding in plain sight. Once Israel believed that Iran had taken decisive steps toward nuclear breakout, there was every reason to think Netanyahu would launch a military campaign to stop it.
Exploiting a narrow window of surprise before a sixth round of U.S.-Iranian talks, Israel struck. Invoking the legendary British leader who is among Netanyahu’s heroes, Netanyahu’s elder son rushed to call his father “the Churchill of our time.”
As always, though, the critical dilemma for Israel—and for its prime minister—remains how to parley battlefield success into an improved future. Still embroiled in numerous hot conflicts, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are overstretched. A sleepless Israeli home front, although resilient, is reeling from the extensive damage caused by frequent Iranian barrages, which are expected to intensify in the coming days. It may not be long either until, as in the wake of Oct. 7, 2023, traditional fault lines in Israeli society resurface.
Of further concern will be the sustainability of support from Washington, which has provided critical armaments and also assisted in intercepting Iranian retaliatory attacks. Israel cannot destroy Iran’s path to a nuclear bomb if the underground Fordow enrichment facility remains intact. Netanyahu is hoping that President Donald Trump will commit U.S. assets for that purpose. Trump—who changed his tone to embrace Israel’s raid after the fact—is still noncommittal on that score, emphasizing instead that “Iran and Israel should make a deal.” But his latest posts on social media indicate that he may be inclined to oblige. His calculus will surely be influenced by a raging debate within the Republican Party between pro-Israel interventionists and MAGA isolationists.
Much will revolve around Netanyahu’s formulation of a credible endgame for this conflict—something he has struggled to do in Gaza with grave humanitarian and strategic consequences. The IDF is clamoring for more time to continue defanging the threat from Iran, but circumstances are dynamic. Netanyahu will be forced to choose between eventually calling off the attack and reaching an agreement with Iran’s current rulers or plowing ahead in the uncertain hope of destroying Iran’s nuclear program or toppling its regime. Distrustful of the Iranian clerical government—“they lie, they cheat, they string the U.S. along,” the prime minister told ABC News on Monday—he eschews any diplomatic bargain. But Trump, who is floating the idea of dispatching Vice President J.D. Vance and presidential envoy Steve Witkoff to pursue dialogue with Iran, holds enormous leverage over the prime minister’s decision.
Netanyahu is also at a crossroads domestically. His Knesset majority has been running out of steam. But he now feels buoyed by the success of Operation Rising Lion. He’s also enjoying a restored relationship with Trump, who recently said, “We get along very well and I think we have great respect for each other.”
The easiest thing for Netanyahu would be to stay the course. That would mean bolstering alliances with his fundamentalist, right-wing partners and continuing to cater to their various sectarian demands, including continuing the war in Gaza in pursuit of “total victory.” Another plausible, if risky, scenario would be to advance the date of elections—scheduled presently for October 2026—with the aim of capitalizing on his recovered popularity and cementing his hold on power.
At this point in his long career, Netanyahu’s concern for his legacy could also lead him to contemplate other, less likely, options. He could try to rehabilitate his image, which was tarnished severely on Oct. 7, by signing a plea bargain in his corruption trials and attempting a semi-graceful exit from office. Alternatively, he might form a new cabinet that includes more centrist parties and then drive to bring the hostages home, secure a cease-fire in Gaza, and normalize relations with Saudi Arabia and Syria. These would be historic achievements.
Netanyahu is fond of saying that Israel is “changing the Middle East.” But change could end many different ways, both for the region and for Israeli politics. Winston Churchill won an existential war only to be rejected by his voters. The same might well happen to Netanyahu.
The post Netanyahu’s Future in the Balance appeared first on Foreign Policy.
