Trump backs Netanyahu: Is the US planning a new Iran attack with Israel?

Trump’s endorsement presented Netanyahu as essential to the US-Israel relationship. He called him a strong, brave and brilliant partner, and said America had done much for Israel. The message went beyond election support by linking Netanyahu’s leadership to future US action against Iran.

Trump wrote that Iran had been “systematically destroyed” militarily and financially. He said the United States would soon “finish the job” if Iran did not change its ways. He also warned that, under any Israeli leader other than Netanyahu, America might have to do the work itself.

The wording signals continued US backing for Israel and possible renewed pressure on Iran. However, the article reports only that analysts suspected Trump might restart attacks. It does not confirm a decision, timetable or detailed military plan. The conflict was described as being at a standstill.

The endorsement matters because it gives Netanyahu a powerful international ally during a difficult campaign. It lets him argue that Israel’s relationship with Washington depends on his leadership. That message may reassure voters who prioritize security and close US ties.

The timing makes the endorsement especially notable. Trump had previously avoided fully backing Netanyahu and even said he trusted nobody. Sanam Vakil called the endorsement politically significant after months of tension. Andreas Krieg described it as a political gift that could help Netanyahu mobilize reluctant Likud voters.

Its impact may still be limited. The opposition alliance was projected to win 52 seats, compared with 51 for Netanyahu’s coalition. Analysts cited fragmented right-wing parties, disappointed ultra-Orthodox voters and the legacy of October 7. Trump might add one or two seats, Krieg said, but he cannot create a governing majority.

Israel’s parliamentary system allocates Knesset seats to parties according to their election support. Voters choose parties rather than directly electing a prime minister. After the results, a governing coalition must be assembled from parties that together command a majority in the 120-seat Knesset.

That means the party with the most seats is not automatically the government. For example, Netanyahu’s Likud-led coalition was projected to take 51 seats, while the opposition alliance led by Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar party was projected to take 52. Neither side reached the required majority, so smaller parties could become decisive.

The article reports that no party was projected to win an outright majority. In practice, coalition talks determine who can govern. Fragmented parties can make negotiations difficult, and a leader may fail to form a government even after finishing first. The article identifies those divisions as a major problem for Netanyahu.

A parliamentary majority means controlling more than half of the Knesset. Because the chamber has 120 seats, a government needs at least 61 seats to command a majority. That threshold allows it to pass legislation and survive ordinary parliamentary votes more securely.

The article’s election tracker projected 52 seats for the opposition alliance led by Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar party. Netanyahu’s Likud-led coalition was projected to win 51 seats. The opposition was therefore nine seats short, while Netanyahu’s bloc was ten seats short.

These figures show why smaller parties matter. Neither bloc could govern alone, and both would need additional partners. The article says no party was projected to secure an outright majority. Analysts also warned that fragmented right-wing parties and disillusioned ultra-Orthodox voters made Netanyahu’s coalition challenge structural, not merely a problem of campaign messaging.

The Strait of Hormuz is a strategic waterway used by oil tankers leaving the Persian Gulf. Its importance comes from concentration: the article says it once carried 20 percent of global crude. A conflict there can therefore affect energy supplies far beyond Iran and its neighbors.

After the war began, Iran effectively shut the strait. The United States then imposed a naval blockade on Iranian vessels, while both countries struck ships they accused of breaking orders. Oil traffic later returned to pre-war levels as the US Navy escorted more tankers.

The article reports that fresh Iranian attacks on vessels again hit crude exports through Hormuz. Less oil moving through a major route can tighten available supply. If buyers fear further disruption, oil prices can also rise. The article does not provide a specific price change, but it clearly links fighting there with damaged crude exports.

Restarted attacks would mean the conflict was no longer at a standstill. Iran could face further military and financial pressure, while Israel and the United States would confront continuing security and operational risks. The article does not specify the likely military winner or the scale of damage.

The earlier pattern shows the key mechanism. Iran effectively shut Hormuz, the United States imposed a naval blockade, and both sides struck vessels accused of disobeying orders. US Navy escorts later helped tanker traffic recover, but new Iranian attacks again reduced crude exports. A repeat could recreate that contest.

For world energy markets, the main risk would be fewer shipments through a route that once carried 20 percent of global crude. Reduced flows and fears about further disruption would likely push prices and volatility higher. Exact effects would depend on how long the disruption lasted and whether escorts restored traffic, details not provided in the article.

Military alliances expand a country’s reach and signal that an attack may trigger a wider response. Economic sanctions reduce access to money and trade, weakening an opponent without direct combat. Naval blockades add physical pressure by restricting ships and supplies.

The article gives a concrete example involving Iran, Israel and the United States. Trump said Iran had been weakened militarily and financially. After Iran effectively shut Hormuz, the US Navy blockaded Iranian vessels and escorted tankers. Both countries also struck ships they accused of ignoring orders.

Strategic waterways create leverage because many countries depend on them for energy and trade. Disrupting one can affect global supplies, while reopening it can reduce pressure. The article shows that control is contested: tanker traffic returned to pre-war levels under US escort, then fell again after Iranian vessel attacks. These tools raise the costs of conflict for opponents and outsiders.