
Taking on Israel's greatest foe has banished Netanyahu's political troubles in an instant
Benjamin Netanyahu is once again firmly in control of Israeli politics.
The country's longest-serving prime minister has pulled himself back from the abyss with what appears to be a wildly successful opening to a military campaign against Iran.
'Bibi had his Churchill moment,' said one Israeli official from within the coalition, using the prime minister's nickname.
One day before launching what Israel dubbed Operation Rising Lion, Netanyahu's government had faced a confidence vote from the opposition.
Two of the ultra-Orthodox parties threatened to vote against the government in what would have put major pressure on Netanyahu. But he survived the vote – with quite some margin.
Twenty-four hours later, Israel began attacking Iran. In one instant, Netanyahu's political problems were swept away. No more ultra-Orthodox parties complaining about the military draft or far-right parties shouting about praying in the al-Aqsa compound.
'The cards are in his hands. If they weren't a week ago, they are now,' said the official.
The weekly political protests – first over the judicial reform, then over the war in Gaza – that have dogged Netanyahu for much of his current term quickly vanished, with orders from Israel's Homefront Command forbidding large gatherings of people. Netanyahu's testimony in his trial on charges of corruption is on hold and out of the headlines. The stories of the hostages still held in Gaza for more than 600 days of war are no longer front-page news.
Netanyahu is well aware of the political consequences of such a successful military operation, according to an Israeli source in the prime minister's orbit, though the source insists it's not his focus right now
'If we are doing something good for Israel, it's good to us,' the source said. 'It's good for you electorally, it's good for you with the voters … He will harvest this in the future.'
The source also pointed out the complete reversal of the political opposition from attacking Netanyahu to supporting him.
'This time, we have unity almost all over the Knesset, except from the Arab parties, and we have unity in the people,' said the source.
Iran has been at the center of Netanyahu's identity for nearly his entire political career. His time as Israel's longest-serving leader is replete with warnings about Iran. Some have been borderline cartoonish, like when he held up a drawing of a bomb to warn of Tehran's advancing nuclear program at the United Nations General Assembly in 2012. He has since returned to the same podium – and many others – to lecture the world repeatedly about the intent of the Ayatollahs.
Israel's existential fear wasn't a single one of its adversaries. It was all of them combined: an overwhelming attack from Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and the Shiite proxies in Syria and Iraq. This was Israel's nightmare scenario that Hamas tried to instigate with its attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
It quickly became evident that each entity had its own interests.
Hezbollah began launching attacks against Israel on October 8, but it was far from the massive barrages which worried the military's leadership. Iran launched two retaliatory attacks against Israel last year in April and October. The Houthis began firing drones and ballistic missiles at Israel from Yemen, but never more than one or two at a time.
Over 20 months of war, Israel was able to defang each of its adversaries. Hamas is a shell of its former self, Hezbollah has been shattered, and the Houthis don't have the arsenal to pose a major threat.
'They've kind of broken down the axis into the more manageable parts,' former US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro told CNN.
That allowed Israel to turn its focus to Iran without fear of massive retaliation from another front. From Netanyahu's political perspective, the risk was far lower, especially since Israel's spy agency has treated Iran like its playground for years.
'At his age, he has much less of a political career left to lose,' Shapiro said. 'So it's easier to throw the caution that held him back in the past to the wind, especially to reach for a career-defining goal.'
But whether the military campaign against Iran buoys Netanyahu's long-sinking polling numbers is not a foregone conclusion, according to Yohanan Plesner, president of the Israeli Democracy Institute.
Prev
Next
Polling in recent months has repeatedly shown Netanyahu far behind political rival Naftali Bennett. Crucially, it has indicated he would fall far short of being able to build a coalition with his current political partners, ousting him from leadership.
The Iran operation may not ultimately deliver the political salvation Netanyahu wants, Plesner said, because it is an issue with broad agreement from the left and the right.
'It's a tremendous consensus around the need for Israel to do the utmost to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear,' Plesner told CNN. 'It's not an issue that there was an ideological debate about.'
Israel is also mired in the ongoing war in Gaza with no clear exit and lacking a comprehensive day-after plan. A second war, even with far more tangible accomplishments, presents another risk to Netanyahu if it drags on.
'The ability of the government to translate the military successes into an advantageous diplomatic outcome is yet to be determined,' said Plesner.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
33 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump is flirting with strikes in Iran. That could be a tough sell at home.
For years now, Americans have been trending in a more isolationist, anti-war direction. Particularly on the right, the ascendant view is that the world's problems are not necessarily ours. Iran could be about to test that. President Donald Trump has in recent hours employed increasingly bold rhetoric about involving the United States in Israel's attacks on Iran. On Tuesday afternoon, he wrote on Truth Social that 'we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.' He added that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is an 'easy target,' and said, 'We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' He called for Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.' These comments came as CNN reported he's indeed quickly warming to using the US military to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Trump has saber-rattled for effect before, so it's possible this is him employing the 'madman theory' of foreign policy again. But it's also evident that we're closer to a major new military confrontation than we've been in two decades. So how might Americans view it if Trump did involve the US military offensively? It's complicated. Americans have in recent years expressed plenty of worry about Iran and even support for hypothetical military strikes. But there is reason to believe military action today could be a bridge too far – for the same reasons Americans have been drifting away from foreign interventions. Much of the polling here is dated, and views are of course subject to change based on fresh circumstances. A 2019 Fox News poll is the most recent high-quality survey to ask directly about a situation like the one Trump is contemplating. And it found a significant level of support for using action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. American voters favored that 53% to 30% – a 23-point margin. The question from there is whether Americans would view that as indeed the purpose here. This is how Trump has billed potential strikes, saying Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon. But as recently as March of this year, his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified quite the opposite. She said that the intel community had assessed that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' Trump disputed Gabbard's account on Tuesday, but it's not difficult to see her words – and US intelligence assessments about the lack of imminence of an Iranian nuclear weapon – becoming a problem. That's particularly because America's last major military foray, into neighboring Iraq, became so unpopular due how the Bush administration exaggerated the threat it posed. Americans have appeared open to military action in theory. The question from there is how immediate they view that threat as being. Some surveys indicate Americans do tend to view Iran as a major threat – and on a bipartisan basis: The same Fox poll showed 57% of Democrats and 65% of Republicans called Iran a 'real national security threat.' A 2023 Fox poll showed more than 6 in 10 Democrats and about 8 in 10 Republicans were at least 'very' concerned about Iran getting a nuke. And Gallup polling last year showed 93% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats described Iran developing nuclear weapons as a 'critical threat' to the vital interests of the United States. But other surveys suggest that perceived problem might not rank particularly high. Pew Research Center polling last year showed many more Americans felt China (64%) and Russia (59%) were major military threats than Iran (42%). Pew data last year also found only 37% of Americans said limiting Iran's power and influence should be a 'top priority.' It ranked lower than limiting Russia and China's power and about the same as North Korea's – while also falling below limiting climate change. And back in 2020, just 14% of Americans thought Iran was such a threat that it required immediate military action, according to a CBS News poll conducted by SSRS. A huge majority felt it was a threat that could be contained (64%), while 17% said it wasn't a threat. All of these numbers could change if Trump goes down the path toward the US hitting Iran. He has shown an ability to get Republicans, in particular, to buy into pretty much whatever he says. (Though some prominent conservative voices like Tucker Carlson have strongly rejected the idea of strikes, meaning there could even be some resistance there). Anyway, it's likely we'd see these numbers polarize. But US intelligence assessments had concluded that not only was Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon — in contrast to Israeli warnings — but that it was also up to three years from being able to produce and deliver one to a target, CNN reported Tuesday. Trump's history with Iran also looms here. In 2020, he launched a controversial strike that killed a top Iranian commander, Qasem Soleimani. And polling often showed people leaned in favor of the strike. But polling also showed Americans said by double digits that the strike made us less safe domestically. And a CNN poll at the time showed Americans disapproved of Trump's handling of the situation with Iran also by double digits, 53-42%. All of which indicates Americans are concerned about blowback and don't have a particularly high degree of faith in Trump's Iran policies. The sum total of the data suggest that, while Americans are concerned about the prospect of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, they don't necessarily view it as an immediate problem necessitating the use of the US military. If someone asks you if you are worried about a nuclear foreign country, of course that sounds scary. You might even sign off on a hypothetical in which US military might be needed to combat that threat you fear. But it doesn't mean you think that's imminent enough to warrant putting US servicemembers in harm's way and setting off a major Middle Eastern war, today. And there's plenty of reason to believe Trump could – or at least should – approach this idea cautiously.


CNN
33 minutes ago
- CNN
GOP hawks clash with MAGA isolationists as Trump contemplates next steps in Iran
(CNN) — As President Donald Trump prepared to leave the G7 summit a day early amid an escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, he dialed up his go-to national security confidant Sen. Lindsey Graham — who's also one of the GOP's most vocal war hawks. In that phone call, Graham said he personally urged Trump to go 'all in' to end any hope Iran had of attaining a nuclear weapon, using the considerable might of the US military if necessary. After months of talks with Iran ahead of Israel's strikes last week, Graham now warned Trump: The window for diplomacy has passed. 'I said, 'Mr. President, this is a historic moment. Four presidents have promised that they won't get a nuclear weapon on your watch. You can fulfill that promise,' Graham said, recalling his conversation with Trump. The call reflects how Trump, who has embraced a more isolationist approach than many of his GOP predecessors, is navigating competing forces within his own party as he contemplates whether to order the US military to strike Iranian nuclear sites. On one side: traditional Republicans like Graham who are eager to see the US flex its military muscle. On the other, key MAGA allies like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has forcefully argued this week that anyone 'slobbering' for the US to intervene in Iran is not in line with Trump's politics. Greene told CNN she has traded texts with the president recently, though she would not divulge their conversation. 'We have all been very vocal for days now urging, 'Let's be America first. Let's stay out,'' Greene told CNN on Tuesday of the pressure campaign, which she said has included more isolationist Republicans like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon and Matt Gaetz. The lobbying has played out publicly and privately, with Republicans taking aim at one another as they have jockeyed for Trump's attention. In public appearances since his phone call with Trump, Graham has pushed a specific plan for Trump to use the US military to attack a secretive Iranian nuclear site, which is so deep underground that the only way to destroy it would be using a massive bomb that only America possesses. That kind of move would also require a US bomber to enter Iranian airspace — a major escalation of the American role in the conflict. Two US officials told CNN Tuesday Trump was increasingly receptive to that approach, and less interested in pursuing a diplomatic solution. 'The president, he's his own man. Everyone who knows Donald Trump knows he makes up his own mind. But I think it's important to discuss. We have to let him know what we think,' Greene told CNN, adding that she's been getting a flood of calls to her office supporting her position. 'Many Americans just do not want to be involved. That's why I spoke up and have been vocal about it.' As the president huddled in the Situation Room with his top advisers to weigh his options on Tuesday, a small group of House and Senate lawmakers — including at least one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie — have been privately mobilizing one possible way to check Trump's power in Congress. In the last 24 hours, two lawmakers have introduced War Powers Resolutions that would formally limit Trump's power to deploy the military without Congress' specific consent. Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine is leading the push in the Senate, with Massie taking lead on the House measure. Such an effort could face tall odds in the GOP-controlled chambers of Congress, particularly if a vote comes before more Trump action in the Middle East. But both measures in the House and Senate are expected to be 'privileged,' which means leaders will be forced to bring it to the floor. That could be a major headache for both parties, with Democratic progressives and GOP ultraconservatives known to veer from their own party orthodoxy on war powers matters. Debate on the Senate measure is expected to come to a head in the coming days, with a vote as soon as next Wednesday, Kaine told CNN. It could have robust Democratic support. 'I believe Congress and the Senate, Senate Democrats, if necessary, will not hesitate to exercise our authority,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on whether he would support the measure. In the House, the timeline for a vote is less clear. Massie formally introduced the measure on Tuesday but privately has not yet indicated when he might force it to the floor, as lawmakers of both parties closely watch Trump's next steps, according to multiple people familiar with the discussions. In the House, GOP leaders have moved to prevent contentious measures from coming to the floor before — but it's not clear the votes would be there to do that this time, according to one person familiar with the discussions. Lawmakers' calculus could also be upended by what Trump does in the coming days, sources in both parties told CNN. That includes whether Trump escalates the conflict by using U.S. military assets to strike Iranian nuclear facilities like the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, the deep underground facility that is seen as key to Iran's desires to constructing a unclear weapon. 'If that happens, then it's a game changing calculation,' one congressional source told CNN. Greene and Massie are not the only Hill Republicans vocally opposed to Trump increasing US involvement in the conflict. Sen. Josh Hawley, another critic of intervening in foreign wars, spoke to Trump about this topic, including others, in a recent call. He said Trump 'wisely' did not talk about offensive action with Iran in their conversation. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky noted that Trump has in the past held back, and said he hoped he would do so again. 'I think the lingering chance for diplomacy comes from restraint. The President has shown restraint in the past,' Paul said. 'The president's instincts are good, and I'm hoping the President will not get involved with the war. I think, if the United States actively bombs Tehran, the possibility of negotiation goes out the window.' Trump has sparred with both Massie and Paul over his domestic agenda, and multiple Republicans told CNN it appears that the White House is listening more to war hawks like Graham than his isolationist allies. Some of those Republicans pointed to Trump's dig at conservative commentator Tucker Carlson earlier this week, after Carlson accused the president of being 'complicit in an act of war' in Israel's strikes on Iran. Carlson also called on the US to decouple itself from Israel altogether — not providing any funding or weapons to assist its long-time ally. 'I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen,' the president told reporters in response. Hill Republicans took notice of the flap. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the veteran Kentucky Republican and leading defense hawk, singled out both Carlson and Bannon to CNN on Monday. 'I think what's happening here is some of the isolationist movement led by Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon are distressed that we may be helping the Israelis defeat the Iranians — it's the same kind of complaint they had about helping Ukraine,' McConnell said in rare public remarks to reporters since leaving his leadership post. 'I would say it's been kind of a bad week for the isolationists.' Asked if he thinks the GOP's isolationist wing has too much sway with President Donald Trump, McConnell said: 'I think that remains to be seen. The president still has the opportunity do the right thing. I think he will. … I think we ought to help the Israelis win and help the Ukrainians win. It's in our interest to do that.'
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Indexes end lower as Israel-Iran fighting raises investor anxiety
STORY: U.S. stocks closed lower on Tuesday, with the Dow dropping seven-tenths of a percent, the S&P 500 losing more than eight-tenths and the Nasdaq shedding nine-tenths of a percent. The Israel-Iran conflict raged on for a fifth day, with the U.S. military moving fighter jets to the Middle East and President Donald Trump calling for Iran's "unconditional surrender." Besides the conflict, investors are closely watching for any new information on Trump's tariffs, his tax-cut bill and U.S. interest rates. The Federal Reserve is expected to leave rates unchanged at the conclusion of its two-day policy meeting on Wednesday, despite ongoing pressure from Trump to lower them. Robert Conzo is CEO of The Wealth Alliance. 'I think [Fed Chairman] Jerome Powell wants to be independent from Trump. He wants to show I'm not going to be strong-armed by the government. I'm going to hold this until we're ready to drop it down. I'm not really sure why the Fed doesn't do a signalling cut of 25 basis points just to show that they're willing to do it. The rest of the world is cutting. We're in great shape. I'm not sure why he doesn't do that, but he's not. And there's no indication that in this particular round he's going to [cut rates].' Stocks on the move included solar companies which fell after Senate Republicans late Monday unveiled proposed changes to Trump's tax-cut bill, including a phase-out of solar, wind and energy tax credits by 2028. Enphase Energy tumbled 24% and Sunrun plunged 40%. Also, Eli Lilly shares dipped 2% after the company agreed to acquire Verve Therapeutics for up to $1.3 billion. Shares of Verve surged more than 80%. And shares of JetBlue fell almost 8% after its CEO told employees the airline will wind down underperforming routes and reassess the size and scope of its leadership team. The carrier also said it was unlikely it would break even this year, according to an internal memo seen by Reuters. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data