Could Israel’s Political Deadlock Reignite War with Iran?
29 October 2026 WANA News
WANA (Oct 29) – Israel’s election was expected to determine Benjamin Netanyahu’s political future. However, the preliminary results have neither confirmed his departure from power nor paved the way for the formation of a stable government. The more pressing question now is not who will become the next prime minister, but whether a period of political uncertainty could create an opportunity for renewed military escalation against Iran.
According to the preliminary results, Netanyahu’s coalition secured 53 seats, the opposition bloc won 48, and Arab parties collectively obtained 19 seats. Neither of the two main blocs reached the 61 seats required to form a majority government. Under these circumstances, coalition negotiations and the positions taken by Arab parties could play a significant role in determining the composition of the next government.
Yet the significance of the election extends beyond Netanyahu’s political future. With tensions between Iran, Israel and the United States remaining high, the political uncertainty in Tel Aviv raises the question of whether Netanyahu might turn to external escalation to retain power or strengthen his political position.
The Risks of a Political Transition
Netanyahu’s potential failure to form a government would not mean an immediate departure from office. He could remain prime minister until a new government is formed and power is transferred. Therefore, even if his opponents eventually succeed in assembling a coalition, the transition period could have implications for regional developments.
Political analyst Morteza Makki has identified the uncertainty following the election as a factor that could give Netanyahu an opportunity to launch an attack on Iran. This is a possibility raised by the analyst, rather than an indication that Israel has made a definitive decision to start another war.
Nevertheless, the reasoning behind this concern is clear. If Netanyahu feels his political position is under threat, he may seek to bring the perceived Iranian threat back to the forefront of public attention as a way of shifting the focus toward security issues. Such a move, however, could also backfire, imposing additional military and economic costs on Israel.
Netanyahu’s own remarks about Iran add another dimension to these concerns. Addressing supporters of his Likud party in Jerusalem, he praised U.S. President Donald Trump and said Israel and Washington faced a “historic, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to eliminate what he described as the Iranian threat. His remarks indicate that confronting Iran remains central to Netanyahu’s publicly stated security priorities.
These statements alone do not signal a definitive decision to launch another attack. However, combined with the political uncertainty following the election, they raise a more pressing question: Could domestic political changes in Israel influence its military calculations?
Netanyahu also maintained that the right-wing bloc had secured a decisive majority, a position at odds with Israeli media projections indicating that neither of the two main blocs had reached the 61-seat threshold. According to those projections, Arab parties, with approximately 18 to 19 seats, could also play an important role in government formation.
A view shows an anti-Israel board, written on it ” 5064 days until the destruction of Israel”, in a street in Tehran, Iran, October 28, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
Why Israel’s Election Matters to Iranians
For Iranians, Israel’s election is not merely a foreign political story. The central question is how political developments in Tel Aviv could affect the likelihood of renewed military attacks and the security of the region. With the possibility of another confrontation still on the table, the struggle to form a government in Israel is closely linked to concerns about Iran’s security future.
A WANA reporter spoke with Iranian citizens to hear their views on how the election results might affect Netanyahu’s policy toward Iran and the possibility of another attack. The responses of Mehdi Nasiri Sarvi, a university professor, and Abdollah Karimi, 52 years old Iranian citizen, reflected two different assessments of the situation.
Nasiri Sarvi pointed to the possibility that Netanyahu’s political camp could form a government, noting that even if it fell short of the required threshold, a coalition with other groups could still be possible.
Asked about the likelihood of another Israeli attack on Iran, he said: “An Israeli attack on Iran, on its own, does not seem feasible.”
He argued that U.S. involvement would be a major factor in any such decision. The outcome of the U.S. elections and the composition of Congress could also influence Washington’s decisions.
Karimi, by contrast, emphasized the time Netanyahu still has to influence developments. He argued that even if Netanyahu fails to form the next government, it would be premature to assume that his political role would end immediately.
“He will do everything he can, by whatever means necessary, to cause as much damage as possible while he still has time. Honestly, I do see the possibility of an attack,” Karimi said.
The two perspectives highlight different dimensions of the potential risk. Nasiri Sarvi sees the role of the United States as a decisive factor in determining whether military action is possible, while Karimi focuses on the possibility that Netanyahu could use his remaining time in office to advance his policies.
These interviews do not represent the views of all Iranians, but they illustrate how the Israeli election results can be assessed through the lens of the risk of renewed conflict.
For Iranians concerned about the potential consequences of another war for security, economic stability and everyday life, the issue is not simply who will become Israel’s next prime minister. Security and military decisions made between the announcement of election results and the formation of a new government also matter.
However, Netanyahu’s potential failure to form a government does not, by itself, mean that the risk of war will necessarily decline. Likewise, his continued presence in office would not establish that a decision to attack has been made.
Assessing the risk of escalation requires looking beyond the election results to consider possible scenarios, the role of the United States and the security calculations of the parties involved.
Three Scenarios and One Central Question
Three scenarios have emerged in analyses of the possibility of renewed conflict: an Israeli attack followed by U.S. involvement; an intensive joint operation by the two countries; or a limited Israeli strike that could escalate into a wider confrontation. None of these scenarios has been confirmed as a definitive military plan.
In all three cases, the central issue is not merely the ability to launch an attack, but also whether its consequences could be contained. Iran’s response could expand the scope of the conflict to U.S. military bases and regional infrastructure. A renewed confrontation could also further endanger shipping security in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, placing additional pressure on global energy markets.
Washington’s calculations will therefore be crucial. U.S. intelligence, logistical and military support could affect Israel’s ability to conduct an operation. However, the risk of a wider war would also carry costs that Washington would have to weigh.
Netanyahu’s Political Fate Is Not the Only Decisive Factor
The election results indicate that Netanyahu faces a serious challenge to retaining power, but it is still too early to declare the end of his political career. Even the formation of a new government would not necessarily lead to an immediate shift in Israel’s policy toward Iran.
For Tehran, the issue goes beyond whether one prime minister stays or leaves office. Israel’s security policies, the extent of U.S. support and regional conditions will all influence the likelihood of renewed conflict.
Netanyahu’s electoral gamble could become a serious threat to the region if the pressure to retain power becomes linked to a decision to take military action. The danger lies in the combination of political uncertainty, military calculations and the possibility of misjudging the other side’s response. Together, these factors could turn a domestic political crisis into a new confrontation with far-reaching regional and global consequences.
