Israel’s election on Tuesday may change who leads the country, but regional policymakers and analysts say it is unlikely to alter the government’s strategy. Iran is expected to remain Israel’s main adversary, military force will likely stay its preferred instrument, and a Palestinian state looks like a distant prospect.
The analysts point to the strategic assumptions behind Israeli policy, which they say were hardened by the October 7, 2023 attacks on southern Israeli communities by the Palestinian militant group Hamas. The wars in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran have reinforced those assumptions, they added.
Netanyahu’s return could harden Israel’s security stance
The analysts said Israel could in fact toughen its security policy. A victory for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, backed by far-right coalition partners, could encourage him to intensify the war with Iran, tighten control over the occupied West Bank and sideline diplomacy even further.
Also read: Trump endorses Netanyahu ahead of Israel's October election
Israel’s security doctrine, as described by the analysts, rests on three pillars: weakening Iran, maintaining buffer zones beyond its borders and using force to deter enemies. Netanyahu said on Sunday that Israel must prioritise “prevention and offence over containment and defence”. His remarks included pre-emptive strikes against emerging threats, the goal of establishing Israel as a regional power and maximising its independence in arms production.
Aviv Bushinsky, a former adviser to Netanyahu, said the government’s direction would not change regardless of the result. “What you see now is what you’ll see after the election, maybe even more aggressively,” he said. He added that as long as Iran remained in its current situation, discussing Palestine was a waste of time.
Analysts see differences of degree, not direction
According to the analysts, the real divide between possible leaders is one of degree rather than direction. The questions include how aggressively Israel fights its wars, how far it expands Jewish settlements in the West Bank and whether any leader chooses diplomacy.
From Tehran to Riyadh, the election is not being viewed as a potential turning point. Instead, many see it as a test of whether the Middle East is settling into a long confrontation, in which wars rise and fall while the underlying conflicts remain unresolved.
The contest pits Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party and its ultranationalist allies against an opposition led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot and his Yashar party. Palestinian analyst Ghassan al-Khatib sees no sign of a fundamental change in policy towards the Palestinians, as Israeli parties compete to appear tougher while public opinion moves further right. He said the parties agree on rejecting a Palestinian state and supporting further settlement growth.
Al-Khatib said a government led by Netanyahu’s opponents might try to improve Israel’s international image by curbing some settler violence or by expanding settlements more quietly. Such moves, he argued, would change the style of policy rather than its substance. Michael Young of the Carnegie Middle East Center said Israel’s security establishment and much of its political class share a strategic outlook focused on Iran, “forward defence” and military deterrence, which leaves little room for major shifts.
Iran pressure and the Gulf dilemma
Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group, who has researched the West Bank, said growing settler violence, mounting Palestinian frustration and the absence of a “political horizon” had created volatile conditions. In his view, even a small trigger could set off a wider uprising.
US President Donald Trump has praised Netanyahu as a “great warrior prime minister”, which has strengthened expectations that Netanyahu would try to finish the campaign against Tehran if he stays in power. Netanyahu’s goals, according to the report, go beyond containing Iran to toppling its clerical rulers. In a speech this week, he said, “Completing the task means toppling the terrorist regime in Iran, the head of the venomous octopus.”
Military and political analysts doubted that anything short of a US-Israeli ground invasion would make Tehran abandon what it sees as its core security interests. After months of war, Iran may be counting on outlasting its opponents while keeping up pressure through regional allies. Young said, “This is a quagmire,” adding, “The Iranians can outlast Trump.” Hezbollah and Hamas have been weakened, but the wider network of Iran-aligned groups has survived, and the analysts warned the conflict could strengthen Tehran’s resolve to pursue a nuclear deterrent.
Some Gulf leaders still view Netanyahu as the Israeli politician most likely to keep Iran under pressure, despite the alarm his policies cause across the Arab world. That leaves them in a dilemma: they oppose what they see as his expansionist policies, yet they want Iranian influence curbed. Abdulaziz Sager, chairman of the Gulf Research Center, said Netanyahu’s policies in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon were damaging. He argued that a settlement with Iran was needed before the conflict escalated further, warning that otherwise the region could face decades of Iranian dominance.
