It seems like a lifetime ago, but just two weeks ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition survived a preliminary Knesset vote to disperse the parliament and call early elections.
That vote was brought by the opposition over the government’s failure to pass a haredi conscription bill with real teeth. That was before June 13 – before the surprise Israeli attack on Iran and its nuclear and ballistic missile-making facilities pushed everything else to the side.
Now that the Iran campaign is over, at least for the time being, other issues are again coming to the fore, including, once more, the possibility of early elections. But this time, with a twist: It wouldn’t be the opposition pushing to dissolve the Knesset but rather the prime minister and Likud themselves, hoping to ride the wave of success in Iran straight into victory at the ballot box.
Just 20 months ago, after the colossal failure of October 7, the idea that Netanyahu might win another election seemed preposterous. Given the national mood at the time – marked by anger, frustration, and humiliation – the notion seemed almost delusional.
But 20 months later, after Israel – by its own estimates and those of US President Donald Trump – significantly set back Iran’s nuclear program, the prospect of Netanyahu winning reelection suddenly seems far more realistic.
A Channel 12 poll on Tuesday night found that if elections were held today, Likud under Netanyahu would be the largest party in the country, narrowly edging out a new party formed by Naftali Bennett, 26 seats to 24. These findings align with recent polls conducted by Maariv and Channel 13. It’s the first time since February, when pollsters began including a potential Bennett party, that Likud has overtaken him.
Even more telling, when asked who is more suited to be prime minister, Netanyahu or Bennett, 38% said the former, while 35% chose the latter – the first time since at least the beginning of the year that the prime minister has outscored the former one on this question.
Not knowing how long this post-Iran glow will last, some around Netanyahu are reportedly now floating the idea of calling snap elections, a move that, to his critics, fits a long-standing pattern.
As former US president Bill Clinton remarked this week: “Netanyahu has long wanted to fight Iran because that way he can stay in office forever and ever. I mean, he’s been there most of the last 20 years.”
Clinton, who frequently clashed with Netanyahu during his first premiership in the late 1990s, gave voice to a long-standing criticism held by the premier’s detractors: that Netanyahu’s focus on Iran was driven, at least in part, by political motives.
Whether or not that view holds today, it reflects how, in the eyes of both supporters and critics, Netanyahu’s security agenda and political trajectory have often moved in tandem.
Sources close to Netanyahu lobbying for elections now to capitalize on success in Iran
Of course, there’s a difference between leading in the polls and being able to form a coalition, something Netanyahu has learned the hard way in the past. However, the widespread refusals in the past from other parties to join a Netanyahu-led coalition, which were once a major obstacle, may no longer be applicable.
National Unity leader Benny Gantz already set that precedent by joining an emergency government with Netanyahu after October 7, and Bennett is unlikely to rule it out.
Channel 12 reported on Monday that sources close to Netanyahu were lobbying for elections now to capitalize on success in Iran, and possibly after a breakthrough in Gaza.
In this campaign, Netanyahu, according to these reports, would acknowledge the failures of October 7 but emphasize that since then, there have been tremendous successes culminating in the June 13 attack on Iran and the remaking of the Middle East.
While there is political logic in calling a snap election now, historical precedent suggests it may not be foolproof. The most obvious comparison is Winston Churchill, the man who led Britain through World War II and oversaw the defeat of Nazi Germany. He went to elections in 1945, only to lose to Labour’s Clement Attlee.
After years of sacrifice, the British public wanted to turn inward and focus on domestic renewal. A similar sentiment could emerge here as well: gratitude to Netanyahu for pushing off the Iranian nuclear threat – his life’s work – but a desire to start a new chapter focusing on domestic healing. And Netanyahu, in power for so long, may not be seen as the one able to lead that process.
At a press conference on Sunday, hours after US planes bombed Fordow and other Iranian nuclear installations, Netanyahu was asked if he planned to run again or if there was a chance he might not.
“I am here as an emissary,” he said. “I have many more objectives, and as long as I believe I can fulfill them, I will. But that depends on only one factor: the people. The people are sovereign. That is the basis of democracy. That is what I believe, and that is how I act.”
The impression Netanyahu left was clear: he’s not planning to go anywhere. And just because he appears to have fulfilled his life’s mission of stopping Iran from going nuclear – at least for the foreseeable future – it doesn’t mean he’s ready to walk away from politics.
That’s why it was jarring, just two days later, when Channel 14’s Yinon Magal – a journalist considered very close to Netanyahu – said he wouldn’t be surprised if the prime minister does, in fact, step aside.
In a conversation on 103FM with caustic Netanyahu critic Ben Caspit, Magal said the prime minister “changed history,” and now the question is whether he will continue.
“You’re saying he might resign? Take a plea deal and go?” Caspit asked, referring to rumors that have circulated for years about a potential plea bargain in Netanyahu’s trials, whereby charges would be dropped or reduced, and he would leave office.
“Let’s say, there’s such an option,” Magal answered. “The man is 76; he’s been through a lot; he has a trial, pressures, family, issues. He really did something extraordinary [with Iran]. And this is a perfect opportunity to say, ‘I’ve done my part,’ and walk away. I think if he continues, he’ll lose.”
Whether Netanyahu chooses to ride the wave or bow out at the crest of his success in Iran, one thing is clear: the man largely written off after October 7 has – at least for now – reshaped the narrative. The post-Iran bump in the polls must be enticing, but as Churchill learned, not every wartime victory translates into a political one.