Israel Election 2026: Will Netanyahu’s Exit Change Iran War Policy?

Israel Election 2026: Why Netanyahu’s Exit May Not Change Iran War Policy

Israel’s October 27 election could change the country’s leadership, but it is unlikely to produce a fundamental shift in its approach to Iran, military security or Palestinian statehood. Regional policymakers and political analysts say the country’s strategic priorities have become deeply entrenched following the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023, and the subsequent wars in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking another term with the backing of right-wing and far-right allies. If he wins, analysts expect his government to maintain its hard line against Tehran, continue expanding Israeli control over the occupied West Bank and leave limited room for diplomatic initiatives. However, even a victory for his opponents may not significantly change the direction of Israeli policy.

The central issue facing voters is therefore not simply who will lead the country, but whether Israel will continue relying on military force to address regional threats or make greater use of diplomacy to prevent further conflict.

Netanyahu’s Victory Could Harden Israel’s Security Policy

Israel’s election pits Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party and its ultranationalist allies against an opposition that includes former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, who leads the Yashar party. Despite their political differences, the competing camps share important positions on national security, particularly the need to counter Iran and maintain Israel’s military advantage.

According to analysts, the main differences concern how aggressively Israel should pursue its objectives, how far it should expand settlements in the occupied West Bank and whether a future government would give diplomacy a greater role.

Aviv Bushinsky, a former adviser to Netanyahu, expects Israel’s military campaigns against Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah to continue if the prime minister retains power. He also expects settlement expansion to remain part of the government’s policy.

Bushinsky warned that Israel’s existing approach could become even more aggressive after the election. His assessment reflects a broader concern among analysts that a new electoral mandate could encourage Netanyahu to pursue his security objectives with fewer political constraints.

Netanyahu has made clear that he wants Israel to move beyond containing threats and preventing attacks. In remarks on Sunday, he called for a greater emphasis on prevention and offensive action, including pre-emptive strikes against emerging threats. He also stressed the importance of establishing Israel as a regional power and reducing its dependence on foreign suppliers for weapons.

These priorities suggest that military deterrence and the use of force will remain central to Israel’s security doctrine, regardless of the election outcome.

Why Israel’s Policy Towards Palestinians May Remain Unchanged

The prospects for a major change in Israeli policy towards the Palestinians also appear limited. Palestinian analyst Ghassan al-Khatib argues that Israel’s political parties have increasingly adopted hard-line positions as public opinion has shifted further to the right.

According to al-Khatib, opposition parties may differ from Netanyahu over the tone and implementation of certain policies, but there is little indication of a broad political consensus in favour of establishing a Palestinian state or ending settlement expansion.

A government led by Netanyahu’s opponents might attempt to improve Israel’s international standing by taking stronger action against settler violence or pursuing settlement construction less openly. Such steps, however, would not necessarily amount to a fundamental change in policy.

Michael Young of the Carnegie Middle East Center says Israel’s security establishment and much of its political class share a common strategic outlook. This includes confronting Iran, maintaining forward defence positions beyond Israel’s borders and preserving military deterrence against regional adversaries.

The broad agreement on these priorities limits the likelihood of a major shift following the election.

For Palestinians, the implications are significant. Continued settlement expansion, the absence of a credible political path towards statehood and persistent security tensions could deepen frustration in the occupied West Bank.

Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group has warned that growing settler violence, mounting Palestinian anger and the lack of a political horizon have created an increasingly volatile environment. Under these conditions, even a relatively minor incident could trigger wider unrest.

The election may therefore change Israel’s political leadership without resolving the underlying issues driving Israeli-Palestinian tensions.

Iran at the Centre of Israel’s Regional Strategy

Iran remains the principal focus of Israel’s wider security policy. Netanyahu’s ambitions extend beyond limiting Tehran’s regional influence to seeking the removal of its clerical leadership.

In a speech this week, Netanyahu described Iran’s government as the head of what he called a “venomous octopus” and argued that completing Israel’s mission required bringing down the Iranian regime.

His position reflects a strategy that treats Iran not simply as a regional rival but as a central threat to Israel’s long-term security.

US President Donald Trump’s public support for Netanyahu has reinforced expectations that the Israeli prime minister could seek to continue the campaign against Tehran if re-elected. However, the extent to which military operations can achieve Israel’s broader political objectives remains uncertain.

Military and political analysts question whether airstrikes and sustained pressure alone can force Iran to abandon what it considers essential security interests. A much wider military campaign, potentially involving ground forces, would carry substantial risks and would not guarantee a decisive political outcome.

Michael Young has described the confrontation as a potential quagmire, warning that Iran could outlast its opponents in a prolonged conflict.

After months of fighting, Tehran may calculate that it can withstand continued pressure while retaining influence through regional allies. Although Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza have suffered significant military setbacks, Iran’s broader network of aligned groups has not disappeared.

The consequences could extend beyond the immediate conflict. Analysts warn that prolonged military pressure could strengthen Iran’s determination to develop a nuclear deterrent, potentially creating another source of instability rather than eliminating the perceived threat.

The key question is whether Israel’s military strategy can produce lasting changes in Iranian behaviour or whether it will lead to a prolonged confrontation with no clear political settlement.

Gulf States Face a Difficult Balancing Act

Israel’s policies have created a complicated dilemma for Arab governments, particularly in the Gulf.

Some regional leaders are deeply concerned about Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza, the occupied West Bank, Syria and Lebanon. At the same time, they want Iran’s regional influence contained and remain wary of the security challenges posed by Tehran and its allies.

This creates a difficult balance between opposing Israeli policies that threaten regional stability and seeking to prevent Iran from expanding its influence.

Abdulaziz Sager, chairman of the Gulf Research Center, described Netanyahu’s policies towards Gaza, the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon as damaging. He also stressed the need for a settlement with Iran before the conflict escalates further.

Sager warned that failing to address Iran’s regional role could leave the Middle East facing the prospect of prolonged Iranian dominance.

His assessment highlights a central contradiction in regional politics: governments may oppose Netanyahu’s approach while still sharing concerns about Iran’s power and ambitions.

For Gulf states, the preferred outcome may therefore be neither unchecked Israeli military action nor an expansion of Iranian influence, but a political arrangement that reduces the risk of a wider regional war.

Achieving that balance will be difficult if military confrontation continues to dominate regional decision-making.

Could a New Israeli Government Pursue Diplomacy?

A victory for Netanyahu’s opponents could bring changes in tone, diplomatic priorities and the handling of particular security issues. It would not automatically mean a departure from the country’s established strategic objectives.

Israel’s political establishment has increasingly treated Iran as a central national security threat, while opposition to Palestinian statehood remains widespread among leading political figures. These positions make a rapid reversal of policy unlikely.

The differences between political parties may instead emerge in how military gains are used, how Israel manages its international relationships and whether it seeks arrangements that reduce the need for prolonged military deployments.

For example, a government more concerned about Israel’s international standing could face greater pressure to address settler violence and improve relations with regional partners. However, such changes would need to be translated into concrete policy decisions before they could significantly alter conditions on the ground.

Diplomacy also faces a fundamental challenge. Israel wants to prevent Iran from threatening its security, while Tehran is unlikely to abandon its own strategic priorities simply because Israel maintains military pressure.

Without a political framework that addresses these competing concerns, the conflict could continue even if the intensity of fighting fluctuates.

Israel Election 2026: What Happens Next?

Israel’s October 27 election comes amid continuing regional tensions and growing questions about the long-term effectiveness of military force as a tool of security policy.

A Netanyahu victory could strengthen the political position of his far-right allies and encourage a more aggressive approach towards Iran and the occupied West Bank. An opposition victory could create opportunities for changes in style and diplomatic engagement, but analysts see limited evidence that it would fundamentally alter Israel’s core security priorities.

For Palestinians, the outlook remains uncertain, with settlement expansion and the absence of a credible path towards statehood continuing to pose major obstacles to a political settlement.

For Iran and the Gulf states, the election could influence the intensity and management of regional confrontation without necessarily changing its underlying causes.

Ultimately, the outcome will determine who leads Israel, but it may not determine the direction of its foreign policy. Unless a new government is willing to reconsider the role of military force, address the Palestinian question and pursue a workable regional settlement, the Middle East could remain caught in a cycle of confrontation with few clear prospects for lasting peace.

Stay informed with the latest national and international news.

© 2026. All rights reserved.

About us

Contact us

Privacy Policy

Disclaimer