Netanyahu is fighting for his political career', expert says a week ahead of crucial vote

The crucial vote is an Israeli national election for the Knesset, the country’s parliament. The supplied article calls it a close-fought election but gives no date or formal election name. Its importance comes from Israel’s coalition system. Voters choose parties, not the prime minister directly. The result determines which political bloc can build a governing majority.

Netanyahu remains prime minister only if his Likud-led bloc wins enough seats, or can secure support from other parties. A strong result would help him claim the mandate to form a government. A weak result could leave him unable to assemble a coalition, even if his party finishes first. Trump’s public prediction that Netanyahu would win adds international attention to the contest.

The article does not provide polling figures or a projected outcome. It says the race is close and that Netanyahu publicly aired Trump’s endorsement. The immediate implication is uncertainty. After votes are counted, negotiations among parties would determine whether Netanyahu continues, another leader forms a coalition, or Israel faces another political impasse.

Donald Trump endorsed Benjamin Netanyahu during a phone call that Netanyahu chose to broadcast publicly. Trump predicted that Netanyahu would win the upcoming close-fought elections. The call therefore offered Netanyahu visible support from a powerful foreign political figure while Israeli voters were deciding the country’s next government.

The call also went beyond electoral encouragement. Trump suggested that he and Netanyahu might attack Iran together again. The wording points to possible renewed military cooperation, although the source gives no operational plan, timetable, or definition of what “again” refers to. It records the suggestion but does not describe a new attack.

The political effect is immediate visibility. Netanyahu could present Trump’s backing as evidence of a strong relationship and shared policy direction. It could also make Iran and security issues more prominent in the campaign. Still, the article provides no evidence that Trump’s prediction changed voter intentions or that any joint military action has been approved.

A political endorsement is a public statement supporting a candidate, party, or political position. It signals that the endorser believes the person should win. In this case, Trump’s endorsement publicly aligned him with Netanyahu before a close-fought Israeli election. That makes the call both a personal message and a campaign-relevant political event.

Foreign endorsements can influence campaigns through attention and credibility. Support from a well-known leader may reassure voters who value the relationship, shared security policies, or international status. It can also give a campaign useful publicity. Netanyahu’s decision to air the call provided a concrete example: the endorsement reached the public rather than remaining a private exchange.

Influence is not guaranteed. Some voters may welcome foreign support, while others may see it as outside interference. The supplied article gives no polling evidence showing an effect on the election. Its clear fact is that Netanyahu used Trump’s prediction and support publicly, alongside discussion of possible future action against Iran.

Benjamin Netanyahu has served as Israel’s prime minister in two separate periods. His first term ran from 1996 to 1999. He returned to office in 2009 and has led successive governments since then, apart from the brief change of government between those periods. The source identifies him as Israel’s prime minister but does not provide this historical count.

This distinction matters because “two periods” is different from “two terms.” Netanyahu’s second period contains multiple election victories and coalition governments. Counting each government separately would produce a larger number. Counting uninterrupted periods out of office produces two. That is the standard meaning of the question here.

The supplied report focuses on his current election campaign and Trump’s endorsement, not Netanyahu’s earlier premierships. Based on established public historical records, the answer is two periods. His ability to begin or continue another government depends on the election result and subsequent coalition negotiations, which the article does not detail.

A loss could end Netanyahu’s current premiership if he cannot command enough support in the Knesset. Israel’s system does not automatically give the largest party’s leader the office. The president authorizes a politician to try to form a government, and that politician must assemble a coalition able to win parliamentary confidence. Netanyahu could therefore lose even if his party remains one of the largest.

The practical consequence would be a transfer of coalition-building responsibility. Another party leader or bloc could try to form a government. If negotiations fail, parties might face renewed political uncertainty or another election. Netanyahu would also lose the immediate governing platform from which he shapes domestic policy, foreign relations, and security decisions.

For Israel, the impact would depend on the coalition that replaces him. Policy toward Iran, Gaza, the United States, and regional partners could change, or some policies could continue. The article supplies no forecast or polling data. It establishes only a close race, Trump’s prediction, and the possibility that Netanyahu’s political future is at stake.

Trump and Netanyahu previously cooperated politically over Iran, especially through opposition to the 2015 nuclear agreement and support for stronger pressure on Tehran. Trump withdrew the United States from that agreement in 2018 and restored sanctions. Netanyahu welcomed that direction. These were aligned policies, not proof that the two leaders jointly carried out an attack on Iran.

When Trump suggested they might attack Iran together again, he could have been referring to renewed coordinated military action or to a future operation involving both governments. The supplied report does not identify a target, date, authorization, or military plan. It also does not explain precisely what “again” means. The wording therefore signals a possibility, not a confirmed decision.

Such a suggestion could affect Israel’s election by making security and Iran central campaign issues. It could also raise regional tensions and complicate diplomacy. However, the article provides no evidence that an attack was imminent. The firm facts are Trump’s suggestion, Netanyahu’s public airing of the call, and their earlier alignment over Iran policy.

Israel uses a parliamentary system based on national elections for the Knesset. Voters select party lists, and seats are distributed among parties that pass the electoral threshold. Because several parties usually enter parliament, one party commonly lacks a majority. The election therefore begins a process of coalition formation rather than directly selecting a prime minister.

After the results, the president consults elected parties and gives a lawmaker the task of forming a government. That lawmaker negotiates with other parties over policy, ministries, and support. If the proposed coalition wins confidence from a parliamentary majority, its leader becomes prime minister. A party can finish first but still fail if rival parties form a different majority.

This mechanism explains why Netanyahu’s election result alone may not settle his future. His Likud-led bloc must win enough seats and maintain partner support. If negotiations collapse, another leader may try. The supplied article does not describe Israel’s electoral rules or coalition talks, so this explanation uses established knowledge of Israel’s parliamentary system.