Does Washington really want Israel to wage a unilateral war against Iran?

author

Authorized prince

Maariv newspaper reported on October 10 that the United States ordered Israel to attack Iran alone, and that the order was not just a request. While Israeli and American media reported earlier that Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir was the one who stopped this path and that he informed the American side during the strategic dialogue between the two countries regarding Iran, that the meaning of the request was to cancel the Israeli elections. While Barak Ravid, a journalist close to the Trump administration, reports that the Trump administration is currently backing down from its request. There was no comment from Netanyahu and his ministers.

While Maariv journalist Ben Caspit confirms that in light of the United States avoiding renewing the war between it and Iran, and in light of the Trump administration’s calculations that the American attack will harm Trump in the American midterm elections, while it will benefit Netanyahu in the Israeli elections. Currently the plan has been suspended.

Potential US accounts

The question arises about the credibility of this American approach and whether its purpose is actually military or political. In military terms, both sides realize that there is no “single Israeli war with Iran,” for several reasons, the most important of which is that the United States cannot abandon its support for Israel in any war in which it is involved, much less with Iran, as previous rounds have proven that the United States is capable of conducting a war alone, while Israel does not have this ability, exclusively in its defensive dimension and in confronting the missiles and drones that reach the Israeli depths, despite its military superiority over Iran. While the last round between the United States and Iran witnessed a firm American decision to exclude Israel from both the military confrontation and negotiations to stop the war.

American public opinion accused Trump of being led by Netanyahu into waging a joint war against Iran at the end of February 2026. Trump also paid a political price with his declining popularity and with widespread American opposition, including a broad Republican one, for waging the war of others, as the retreatist “MAGA” movement called it. Indeed, even the American administration witnessed tensions within it in this regard, exclusively due to the discrepancy between the priorities of Trump, who was concerned with ending the war and finding a favorable way out, and the priorities of Netanyahu, who was concerned with continuing it in an effort to overthrow the regime and even dismantle the country.

The United States is unable to avoid going to war directly, depending on the potential Iranian response. This matter, if it happens, could lead to destabilization of the situation regionally, including threatening the regional map, and exclusively in light of the Saudi-Houthi war, which does not seem to end soon, and it is also taking directions that are not subject to Iran’s control, but rather independent of it. Meanwhile, the region, exclusively the Gulf, is witnessing tension due to the American military bases, which, according to the Saudi Foreign Ministry, seek refuge in the Gulf countries and do not protect them.

Netanyahu government accounts

As the Israeli elections approach, Netanyahu's chances of returning to a war with American partnership against Iran are declining. The most dangerous event that could have led to an Israeli war on Iran, even if it had to bear its repercussions, was the FlyDubai plane incident, which the Netanyahu government considered to be an Iranian plan that should be proven by investigations, while neither Saudi Arabia nor the UAE included Israel in the investigation, and the UAE, according to its investigations, ruled out linking it to Iran. Indeed, the Omani pilot reportedly planned to shoot down the plane on his own. Which ruled out justification for an Israeli-Iranian war.

If the information is confirmed to be correct, that the US administration’s assessments are based on Netanyahu benefiting from the war for his electoral advantage, the reality does not match this assessment. Israeli society is not interested in renewing the war and does not see it as necessary. Rather, it will deal with it as an electoral political war that does not emanate from Israeli national security. While Israel initiates war, it does not control its course, its scope, or the protection of the home front, despite media reports from October 12 that it is developing air defenses based on artificial intelligence to confront drones. It also does not control the geography of war.

Electorally, the position of Netanyahu and his bloc and the possibilities of remaining in power are improving. He is relying on his recent success in controlling the course of affairs within the right-wing bloc, and his bet remains on two possibilities: a reduced right-wing government, or a national unity government with the opposition or part of its components. This is what happens two weeks before the election date, and the situation may change in his favor or in favor of the opposition. He is currently seeking to restore part of his electoral base who had shifted to supporting the opposition, through his campaign and his strong slogan, “Either the right or Palestine,” and delegitimizing any alliance between Eizenkot and the Arab parties or relying on them from outside the coalition. In fact, Netanyahu seeks to besiege the opposition and maintain one option for it, which is a national unity government that he will head in the first period. For this reason, the option of war is declining for him as an electoral lever. In this case, extreme tension becomes better in Netanyahu's eyes than the war itself and helps him control the election agenda.

The position of Israeli Chief of Staff Zamir actually limits Netanyahu's options. The army is bound by the government's decision and not just its prime minister's decision to declare war. Moreover, the prime minister does not have the ability to make a decision to declare war in advance, without the army's assessments, its readiness, and the position of the security system. If otherwise happens, political responsibility falls directly on the Prime Minister.

It seems that the Trump administration’s demand that Israel launch an Israeli war on Iran is a great embarrassment for Netanyahu and may work against him electorally, as if he responds, he will appear to be submissive to the American decision, and if he rejects it, it will appear to be retreating from his rhetoric justifying the war. In declaring that Israel alone will not wage the war, this reveals the limitations of power and the rhetoric of victory that he repeats.

In conclusion; Although the possibility is not completely denied, Netanyahu's chances of declaring war on Iran decline as the Knesset elections approach. While Netanyahu benefits from the state of extreme tension more than the war itself, over the course of which he has no control over and its geography if it occurs.

Israeli public opinion is not interested in renewing the war with Iran, which extends deep into Israel, even if it is unequal, but its consequences are dire, as happened in previous rounds.

The investigations into the Fly-Dubai plane incident were likely to lead to a justified war in Israeli public opinion if Iran was behind it, while the Saudi and Emirati investigations suggest that the Omani pilot planned it alone. Which denies the justification for war.

The decision to go to war with Iran is still distinctly American, and Washington has effectively taken over the keys to the Israeli decision. Also, the war does not help Netanyahu electorally except as a justification for postponing the elections, not resolving them. Therefore, the American demand that Israel wage war on its own seems more politically and electorally embarrassing for Netanyahu.