'All the enemies of Israel want me to lose,' Netanyahu tells 'Post' in pre-election day interview

Netanyahu is claiming that Iran and allied groups may try to influence Israel’s upcoming election. He says their goal could be broader than changing votes directly. They might weaken public confidence in Israel’s security and in the government’s military achievements. That makes the warning both an election concern and a national-security concern.

He said attacks could be staged to suggest that Israel’s military successes had not truly changed the regional balance of power. Netanyahu cited warnings from military intelligence and the Mossad. He did not identify a specific planned attack or explain exactly how the election might be manipulated.

Netanyahu threatened a forceful response if Iran or its proxies acted. He also said Israel had completed 90% of its work against Iran and its allies, while facing the continuing challenge of preventing Iran from rebuilding its capabilities. The warning suggests election security and deterrence will remain closely connected.

A regional proxy is a group that supports a stronger state’s interests without being that state’s regular army. Such groups can provide influence, pressure, or military reach in nearby countries. The term matters here because Netanyahu describes Iran’s threat as involving both the Islamic Republic and forces connected to it.

The article identifies Hamas and Hezbollah as Iran’s proxies. It does not detail their command structures or specific support from Iran. Instead, it presents them as part of the regional challenge Netanyahu says Israel has been fighting. He also refers broadly to Iran’s allies when discussing possible election interference and attacks.

This framing expands the security issue beyond Iran’s own territory. Even if Iran does not act directly, Netanyahu argues that allied groups could help undermine Israeli confidence or preserve pressure on Israel. His stated goal is to stop Iran and its proxies from rebuilding military capabilities after Israeli operations.

The article gives two estimates for Iran’s current ballistic-missile inventory. Netanyahu says Iran still possesses more than 1,000 missiles. The defense establishment’s assessment is higher, at 1,600 missiles. These figures describe what Iran reportedly has now, not the larger arsenal Netanyahu says it planned to build.

Netanyahu claims Iran planned to acquire 20,000 ballistic missiles. Compared with the defense establishment’s estimate of 1,600, that planned total would be 18,400 missiles higher, or 12.5 times as large. Compared with “over 1,000,” it would be more than 19 times larger, though the exact comparison cannot be calculated from an imprecise figure.

The difference highlights the scale of the future threat Netanyahu describes. Even the reported current estimates vary. His argument is that Iran could rebuild and expand its missile capabilities as long as its current regime remains in power, creating a continuing strategic challenge for Israel.

Netanyahu considers Iran’s nuclear and missile programs existential threats because he says they could give Iran the means to destroy Israel. He claimed that Iran was about a year ago close to developing several atomic bombs. In his view, military action addressed an immediate danger but did not remove the underlying threat.

He said Israel acted through Operation Rising Lion and Operation Roaring Lion. Netanyahu argued that without those operations, Iran would have had atomic bombs “to destroy us.” He also claimed Iran planned to acquire 20,000 ballistic missiles and still possessed more than 1,000, while the defense establishment estimated 1,600.

The continuing concern is reconstruction. Netanyahu says Iran will rebuild its nuclear and ballistic-missile capabilities as long as the current regime remains in power. That is why he describes the conflict as unfinished: Israel may have damaged the programs, but it must prevent Iran from restoring them.

Netanyahu describes October 7, 2023, as the starting point for a major military transformation. He says Israel moved from the Hamas massacre that day to becoming “the most powerful force in the Middle East.” He repeated that Israel was clearly the region’s most powerful country.

He points to Israel’s military operations against Iran and its proxies as evidence of that change. Netanyahu says Israel has completed 90% of the job against them. He names Operation Rising Lion and Operation Roaring Lion as actions that addressed the immediate danger from Iran’s nuclear program.

The remaining challenge, in his account, is stopping Iran from rebuilding. He says Iran could restore its nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and broader capabilities while its current regime remains in power. He therefore presents Israel’s military gains as substantial but incomplete, with deterrence and future operations still important.

Security failures can change how voters judge a government’s promises. If attacks occur before the election, people may question whether Israel is truly safer or whether military achievements have produced lasting results. Netanyahu specifically warns that Iran and its allies could exploit this doubt to influence the election.

The article gives a clear mechanism. An attack could be designed to suggest that Israel’s military successes had not fundamentally changed the regional balance of power. Even without directly changing ballots, such an event could damage public confidence in the country’s security and in the leaders responsible for it.

The political effect is uncertain, but the stakes are clear in Netanyahu’s framing. A successful attack or security failure could challenge his claim that Israel is the region’s strongest power. It could also increase pressure on the government to explain how it will stop Iran and its proxies from rebuilding their capabilities.

Intelligence warnings give leaders an early assessment of what an adversary may be planning. In this case, Netanyahu cites military intelligence and the Mossad as warning that Iran and its proxies may try to influence the election. Such warnings can guide defensive planning and public alerts, though they do not prove an attack will occur.

Military force is used to damage or remove an immediate capability. Netanyahu says operations against Iran addressed the immediate nuclear danger and that Israel has completed 90% of its work against Iran and its proxies. Deterrence then seeks to prevent renewed action by making the expected response appear too costly.

The problem is that damaged capabilities can be rebuilt. Netanyahu says Iran will reconstitute its nuclear program and ballistic missiles while the current regime remains in power. His threat of a powerful response is therefore meant to discourage attacks and reconstruction, while intelligence would help identify renewed efforts.