Netanyahu touts Trump endorsement on eve of vote, suggests they may restart war on Iran

Donald Trump publicly backed Benjamin Netanyahu just before Israel’s election, telling voters to choose “Bibi Netanyahu for Prime Minister.” Trump said the two countries had to “finish the job that we started,” referring to the war against Iran launched jointly by Trump and Netanyahu in February. The endorsement therefore became part of Netanyahu’s campaign message.

Netanyahu presented himself as the leader best positioned to use Trump’s support. He said Trump was willing to take action that would “finally” remove the Iranian threat, but connected that possibility to his own continued rule. Netanyahu also said he had instructed Mossad and the IDF to bring down Iran’s regime.

The immediate reality was more limited. A White House spokeswoman said the United States would not attack Iran before America’s November 3 midterm elections. Fighting had been suspended for months after ceasefire talks held without Israel, leaving the prospect of renewed conflict politically powerful but not certain.

In the article, “finish the job” refers to the conflict with Iran that Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu launched jointly in February. Trump used the phrase in a social media endorsement of Netanyahu, making the unfinished war part of Israel’s election campaign. The wording suggested that the earlier military action had not achieved its intended result.

The article connects that intended result to eliminating the Iranian threat. Netanyahu said Trump was prepared to take action that would “finally” remove the threat, while Netanyahu said he had instructed Israel’s intelligence service and military to bring down Iran’s regime. Those comments provide the clearest explanation of what the leaders meant by completing the effort.

However, the article does not describe a specific final operation or military timetable. It says major fighting had been suspended for months after ceasefire negotiations held without Israeli participation. The White House also said the United States would not attack Iran before the November 3 midterm elections, leaving “finish the job” as a political promise rather than an immediate order.

Mossad and the IDF are two different parts of Israel’s security system. Mossad is Israel’s main intelligence service. The IDF, or Israel Defense Forces, is the country’s military. The article identifies Mossad as the intelligence service and the IDF as the military, without describing specific operations in this case.

Their basic roles differ. An intelligence service gathers information, assesses threats, and conducts intelligence-related operations. A military defends the country and carries out military operations. In Netanyahu’s remarks, the distinction mattered because he said he had instructed both organizations to bring down Iran’s regime, presenting the effort as a broad national-security campaign rather than one single military action.

The article does not say what Mossad or the IDF had already done, or what specific missions were planned. It only reports Netanyahu’s instruction and his claim that regime change was the only way to end the Iranian threat. The White House separately said no US attack would occur before the November 3 midterm elections.

The election was highly important because it was Israel’s first national vote since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks. It offered voters a chance to judge the country’s worst security failure in generations and the wars that followed on several fronts. The campaign therefore focused heavily on security, leadership, and responsibility.

The result could weaken Benjamin Netanyahu’s hold on power. Polls suggested his Likud Party would lose seats. That could deprive his coalition of right-wing, far-right, and ultra-Orthodox parties of its narrow majority. Netanyahu’s opponents, led by centrist former military Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot and several opposition parties, also lacked a clear route to replacing him.

The election was not automatically a decisive change of government. Israel’s politics remained divided, and nearly all Jewish-led parties had moved further right on the Palestinian issue. Netanyahu was described as a master of political survival, having returned to office after opponents briefly displaced him following four inconclusive elections within two years.

Renewed fighting with Iran would carry major security consequences for Israel. Netanyahu described Iran as an existential danger and said its regime had to be brought down to end the threat. The article also says Israel was already dealing with wars on multiple fronts after the October 7 attacks. More fighting could therefore add to the country’s security pressures.

The American economic impact was already visible. The article says the Iran war was deeply unpopular in the United States and blamed for a surge in prices, especially fuel. A renewed conflict could keep that issue politically damaging, although the article does not quantify future price increases. The White House said a blockade would remain in force and oil was flowing through the Hormuz Strait.

Trump also faced an electoral risk. His Republicans were trying to hold power in a legislative election, while his Iran war was unpopular. Endorsing Netanyahu could reinforce his foreign-policy position, but it could also tie him more closely to a costly conflict before American voters went to the polls.

An American president’s endorsement matters because Israel’s election was centered on security and relations with Washington. Netanyahu portrayed Trump as an unusually friendly US president and argued that Trump’s support could help remove the Iranian threat. That allowed Netanyahu to present himself as the candidate with the strongest connection to American power.

Trump’s message was unusually direct. He told Israelis to vote for Netanyahu and said they needed to “finish the job” begun in February. Netanyahu used that support to argue that Trump might take further action against Iran only if Netanyahu stayed in office. His opponent, Gadi Eisenkot, praised Trump but said he would cooperate with him regardless of which leader voters chose.

The endorsement also created danger for Trump. His Republicans were trying to retain power in a US legislative election, while the Iran war was deeply unpopular and blamed for higher fuel prices. Publicly tying himself to Netanyahu could therefore energize security-minded voters while alienating Americans angry about the conflict’s costs.

Israel’s parliamentary system converts election results into government through coalition building. Voters elect members of the national parliament, and parties then negotiate over a governing agreement. Because several parties compete, one party often cannot govern alone. A coalition needs enough parliamentary support to command a majority and pass legislation.

The practical mechanism is negotiation. A party leader seeks partners whose seats together provide a majority. Those partners may demand policy commitments or cabinet positions. The leader who successfully assembles a workable coalition becomes prime minister and governs as long as that coalition retains sufficient support. This explanation uses established knowledge about Israel’s parliamentary system; the article itself does not explain the constitutional process in detail.

That system explains why Netanyahu could remain competitive even if Likud lost seats. The article says polls might deprive his right-wing, far-right, and ultra-Orthodox coalition of its narrow majority, while opponents also lacked a clear path to replace him. The election therefore could produce prolonged bargaining rather than an immediate change of leader.