US midterm elections and Israel vote raise risk of renewed Iran war

The elections created deadlines that restrained both leaders. Netanyahu wanted new strikes in October, but Israel's military chief warned that an attack could disrupt the October 27 Knesset election or force its postponement. Trump separately promised not to attack Iran before America's November 3 midterms.

The mechanism was political risk. A war could unsettle voters, interrupt voting, and make either leader responsible for a national crisis during an election. Trump therefore withheld the green light, even as Netanyahu reportedly pressed him to act.

That shared calendar has now disappeared. Netanyahu's bloc won only 53 of 120 seats, while Trump lost both congressional chambers and said the war was the primary reason. The article argues that the danger may now grow because Netanyahu faces political survival pressures, while Trump increasingly wants the war to end.

A caretaker government is the temporary administration that continues running Israel while a new coalition is being formed. It does not automatically lose executive authority simply because an election produced no government. The arrangement matters because Israel may face major security decisions during this unstable period.

After consultations, Gadi Eisenkot was expected to receive the mandate and could have up to 42 days to build a coalition. During that time, Netanyahu would remain caretaker prime minister. Legal experts cited by Asharq Al-Awsat said a caretaker prime minister can lawfully order war.

The main limitation is political, not formal legal power. The Supreme Court has historically stayed out of war decisions, and parliamentary oversight is weakest before the new Knesset forms committees. That could leave Netanyahu with unusually broad room to act while fighting to keep his position.

The core problem is arithmetic. Israel's Knesset has 120 seats, and a governing majority requires 61. Netanyahu's bloc secured only 53 seats, so it fell eight seats short. Without additional partners, it cannot command a majority on its own.

The numbers became worse politically when Gadi Eisenkot was expected to receive at least 56 recommendations against Netanyahu's 53. Ra'am backed Eisenkot, while Degel HaTorah declined to recommend anyone. Yair Lapid also said the American result ruled out a unity government led by Netanyahu.

If President Isaac Herzog gives Eisenkot the mandate, he will have up to 42 days to form a coalition. Netanyahu would remain caretaker prime minister during that period. The shortage therefore threatens both his ability to form a government and his incentive to use a security crisis to regain political support.

The immediate consequence would be a much higher risk of direct regional escalation. Israel does not legally need American permission to strike Iran, but an attack could expose American military assets to retaliation. That would turn an Israeli decision into a crisis for Washington.

The article identifies two mechanisms: American missile-defence batteries are deployed in the region, and American bases lie within Iran's reach. If Iran responded, those forces could become targets or be drawn into defending themselves and partners. Washington might then struggle to remain neutral.

The political timing makes the risk sharper. Netanyahu could be caretaker during a period when his checks are weaker and his political future is uncertain. Trump, however, increasingly wants a deal after Republicans lost both congressional chambers and blamed the war. A unilateral Israeli strike could therefore force Trump back into a conflict he is trying to end.

Netanyahu's political position has become precarious. His bloc holds only 53 seats, and rivals may receive the mandate to form a government. His long-standing political strength has rested on presenting himself as Israel's defender against Iran, so renewed conflict could create the wartime unity government his opponents currently reject.

Trump faces the opposite incentive. JD Vance wrote that Republicans lost because of the war and because voters wanted it ended and wanted a changed relationship with Israel. Trump called that assessment largely true. He also announced that the United States might stop paying roughly $4 billion a year in military aid to Israel.

Trump is not a dove: he has called for a heavy hit and said the United States is locked and loaded if needed. Still, he has strong reasons to seek an agreement. The result is a dangerous mismatch between Netanyahu's political needs and Trump's electoral demands.

Iran's proposal separates an urgent regional problem from the harder nuclear dispute. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi offered to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within two days of an agreement. Nuclear issues would be handled in a second phase, rather than blocking an immediate first step.

The strait matters because tankers were already burning after striking mines near Hormuz, according to Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Brent crude fell nearly 8% on Wednesday as markets hoped for diplomacy. Reopening the passage would therefore address the immediate shipping crisis and give countries a visible reason to pause further escalation.

The proposal does not settle the nuclear questions. It offers a limited opening before January, when the outgoing Republican majority's protection ends on January 3. The article says the deal has a fighting chance if action comes quickly, but it does not describe the proposed second step in detail.

Legal independence does not mean strategic independence. Israel can lawfully strike Iran without American permission, but the United States supports Israel militarily and has forces positioned across the region. Any Israeli attack could therefore create risks that Washington must manage.

The article points to roughly $4 billion a year in American military aid, as well as US missile-defence batteries and bases within Iran's reach. These assets give the United States influence before an attack and create powerful reasons to coordinate. They also make a purely Israeli conflict difficult to contain.

That influence has limits. Trump previously held Netanyahu back because their election calendars aligned, but the article says his leverage is weaker over a caretaker leader whose political calendar is running out. If Netanyahu strikes, the danger to American personnel and the pressure to respond could override Washington's preference for diplomacy.