Benjamin Netanyahu lost his parliamentary majority at the ballot box last month, yet Israeli media reports reveal his cabinet just instructed the army to prepare for a possible strike on Iran.
The move comes while the prime minister leads an interim administration with no clear successor in place. Coalition talks led by opposition figure Gadi Eisenkot could drag on for months, leaving Israel in political limbo.
Also read: Israeli Strike on Nasser Hospital Kills at Least Six, Officials Say
A fresh regional confrontation would alter everything for Israelis facing renewed siren drills and call-ups, while testing Washington’s appetite for another Middle East war. It also poses a fundamental question: can an outgoing leader with no electoral mandate legally commit his nation to an open-ended conflict?
Legal authority behind a potential strike on Iran
On paper, Israeli law does not strip an interim prime minister of wartime powers. Article 30 of the country’s Basic Law confirms that an outgoing cabinet maintains full executive authority until lawmakers swear in a replacement.
The Supreme Court has imposed limits over time through what judges call the duty of restraint. That principle tells caretaker leaders to avoid irreversible, long-term national policies unless an immediate threat demands action.
Security crises almost always break through those judicial limits. Or Asher, a researcher at the Tachlith Institute in Tel Aviv, pointed out that courts rarely second-guess military calls during political transitions.
Parliamentary oversight drops to its lowest point right after an election, before lawmakers set up functioning committees. Because of that vacuum, legal scholars confirm an interim prime minister holds the formal authority to initiate military action against Tehran.
Pushback inside the military and the Knesset
Netanyahu still faces stiff resistance from the people who would have to carry out such an order. Israel’s Channel 13 reported that senior military commanders see no pressing reason to launch an attack right now.
Security chiefs delivered that blunt assessment directly to both Netanyahu and Eisenkot during a joint briefing. The military establishment has shown little enthusiasm for opening a wider confrontation without clear, unavoidable provocation.
Opposition leaders quickly warned the prime minister against using military force for political survival. Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Lieberman demanded that the transitional cabinet refrain from entering a conflict without full parliamentary review and military consensus.
Eisenkot pressed the issue further in a direct letter to the prime minister’s office:
Deploying Israeli forces without a direct and immediate threat that cannot wait could have devastating consequences for Israeli democracy and public trust in the institutions of government.
Netanyahu dismissed those objections, insisting his team weighs security factors alone when reviewing a proposed strike on Iran.
Friction between Washington and West Jerusalem
The biggest obstacle to an operation sits thousands of miles away in the White House. Netanyahu has made repeated phone calls to US President Donald Trump to lobby for joint action, with some discussions turning heated.
Israel’s public broadcaster KAN cited an anonymous official claiming Washington told Israeli forces to prepare for combat. Yet the US military’s Central Command rejected that claim as pure speculation.
Trump’s administration has focused its regional policy on tightening economic sanctions against Tehran rather than deploying troops or bombs. Without American intelligence sharing, aerial refueling and political cover, an independent Israeli attack becomes far riskier.
Political scientist Anders Persson noted that public acceptance in Israel drops when foreign backing vanishes. If the White House refuses to step in, Netanyahu will find it much harder to convince his own public that an offensive is justified.
Historical precedents for caretaker military operations
Ordering major military campaigns from a transitional seat is not unprecedented in Israeli political history. Netanyahu took that exact path in May 2021.
After losing ground in elections, he ordered an 11-day campaign in Gaza while rivals negotiated to replace him. That offensive killed more than 260 Palestinians and 13 people in Israel, briefly freezing coalition talks before Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid eventually unseated him.
Other former prime ministers acted similarly. Ehud Olmert oversaw a devastating 2008 offensive in Gaza while heading an interim government, and Lapid launched strikes during his caretaker tenure in 2022.
Security cabinets have routinely used cross-border operations to reshape political reality at home. What differs today is the scale of the adversary, as direct combat with Tehran carries far higher stakes than operations against armed factions in Gaza.
What happens if sirens sound again
Public reaction inside Israel would divide sharply along partisan lines, at least initially. Analyst Ehab Jabareen noted that citizens often rally around security forces once missiles start flying toward populated centers.
That initial cohesion does not guarantee lasting support for an unprompted strike on Iran. The real political test begins when military reservists leave their jobs and families crowd into bomb shelters for weeks.
Voters would demand to know why the government acted now rather than waiting for an elected administration. If commanders and American allies oppose the timing, critics will see the campaign as a transparent bid to delay Eisenkot’s coalition building.
All eyes now turn to whether the security cabinet authorizes concrete operational moves before Gadi Eisenkot presents his coalition agreement to the Knesset.
Source: Al Jazeera
