Israel’s opposition parties are challenging Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from a hawkish position on Iran, arguing that the February military campaign did not go far enough and that the confrontation remains unresolved. The dispute is shaping the final days before Israel’s October 27 election, with candidates promising tougher action while opposing any new escalation before voters go to the polls.
The February assault, conducted with US participation, initially drew broad support among Jewish Israelis and backing from mainstream opposition parties. That consensus was tested in June, when US President Donald Trump announced that Iran and Israel had agreed to stop attacking each other. A May survey found that 65% of Jewish respondents believed ending the war under the existing conditions did not serve Israel’s security interests.
Gadi Eisenkot, the former military chief and leader of the Yashar party, says the central objective should be the destruction or dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program. Separate election coverage described Eisenkot’s proposed response as including a US-enforced “kill zone” around remaining underground nuclear sites, backed by long-term air resources and inspections that could prevent Iran from rebuilding the program.
Yair Lapid, a former prime minister and opposition leader, has gone further in advocating economic and military pressure. He has argued that attacking Iran’s energy infrastructure, including facilities on Kharg Island, would be necessary to damage the Iranian economy and create conditions for regime change. Naftali Bennett has called for Israel to preserve military dominance across the region, described Iran’s government as a target for removal, and grouped Qatar and Turkey among the forces he considers hostile.
The opposition’s disagreement with Netanyahu is therefore mainly about timing, trust and execution rather than whether military confrontation with Iran should remain an option. Eisenkot and other leaders say decisions should be guided by the military and security establishment, while accusing Netanyahu of failing to turn battlefield gains into a lasting strategic result.
Concerns that Netanyahu could use a security crisis to improve his electoral position intensified after he released a video filmed at Tel Nof Airbase warning that Israel’s enemies might attack before the election. Opposition figures accused him of political fearmongering, and Lapid said the prime minister was using military sites as campaign backdrops. Netanyahu has said he does not intend to attack Iran before the vote.
The election’s timing has also become part of the security debate. Reporting in mid-October indicated that Israel had told Washington it preferred any renewed military action against Iran to begin after October 27, partly because retaliation could bring missile strikes, casualties and disruption at home. Israeli law requires 80 Knesset members to approve an extension of the parliamentary term in an emergency, making postponement difficult without opposition support.
Analysis: Iran has become a contest over which camp can claim greater security credibility. Netanyahu faces opponents who largely accept the premise that Iran must be confronted, but argue that he stopped short of completing the job; they are seeking electoral change without accepting the risks of a pre-election war.