Bibi on the brink: Does Netanyahu still have time to finish the job in Iran?

Israel’s election has produced no clear governing majority. As ballots continue to be counted, early returns show that neither Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc nor the opposition led by Gadi Eisenkot has secured the 61 seats needed to govern.The immediate political question is who can assemble a coalition.But another question may be far more consequential for Israel’s future: Does Netanyahu still have time to finish what he and President Donald Trump started in Iran? The answer is more complicated than the election results might suggest.Under Israel’s Basic Law, an outgoing government continues exercising its functions until a successor takes office. The first lawmaker assigned to form a government generally receives 28 days, with a possible 14-day extension. If those talks fail, the process can continue with another candidate.Netanyahu could therefore remain prime minister for weeks, perhaps longer, even if his bloc cannot assemble a new majority.An outgoing government is not powerless. Israeli law does not automatically prohibit it from undertaking military operations. But a decision to initiate war, or a major operation almost certain to lead to war, requires authorization by the government or the security cabinet, not the prime minister acting alone.The election has not automatically closed Netanyahu’s military options. Nor has it given him a blank check.That distinction matters because Netanyahu has been unusually explicit about his unfinished business.On the eve of the election, Trump urged Israelis to vote for Netanyahu, declaring that they needed to “finish the job” they started. Netanyahu, in remarks reported by Reuters, said he had instructed Israel’s military and Mossad to bring down Iran’s regime. He also claimed Trump was willing to help remove the Iranian threat.Those are extraordinary ambitions. They raise a question that cannot be answered with a campaign slogan: What would finishing the job actually mean?Destroying nuclear facilities is one objective. Preventing their reconstruction is another. Disabling missile production, containing Iran’s armed proxies, and removing its government are different undertakings altogether.They cannot be treated as interchangeable versions of victory.American and Israeli strikes have already damaged Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure. Yet an October assessment by the Congressional Research Service concluded that the current state of Iran’s nuclear program, including the effects of successive rounds of airstrikes, remains unclear.That uncertainty cuts both ways. Tehran’s ability to rebuild cannot be assumed. Neither can its permanent elimination.And there is a second clock running, this one in Washington.Trump has publicly promised not to resume American strikes before the Nov. 3 congressional elections. The Wall Street Journal reported that Israel had prepared another bombing campaign earlier this month but did not proceed after Trump opposed renewed fighting before the election, according to a person briefed on the plans.The larger issue is not a delay of several days. It is whether Washington and Jerusalem agree on the objectives and the conditions for ending the operation.Military cooperation between the countries has been extensive. But cooperation is not an unconditional commitment to every future mission. Israel must account for American decisions, Iranian retaliation, Gulf energy supplies, and the possibility that another campaign would require repeated action rather than one decisive blow.Netanyahu’s political uncertainty complicates that calculation.His supporters can reasonably argue that waiting for a coalition while Iran may be rebuilding dangerous capabilities could be costly. National security threats do not observe election calendars.His critics raise an equally serious concern. A prime minister who may be approaching the end of his tenure must not embark on a major campaign to preserve his political position. The risks of escalation are real, and Israelis deserve confidence that decisions of war and peace reflect security necessities rather than coalition arithmetic.Neither concern can simply be dismissed.None of us knows the military plans Israel and the United States may have developed. Operational secrecy is essential. The absence of a public timetable is not evidence that there is no strategy.But there is a difference between having time to launch another operation and having time to produce a durable result.Airstrikes may destroy facilities, disrupt production, or weaken a regime. Keeping the threat from returning may require intelligence, enforcement, deterrence, and arrangements that survive the leaders who devised them. Regime change presents an even harder problem: The collapse of one government does not guarantee a safer successor.Netanyahu may still have the legal authority, military instruments, and relationship with Trump necessary to act against Iran. What he does not have is unlimited time — or control over everything that would follow.Israel’s next government remains uncertain. The consequences of another Iran campaign would outlast the coalition talks.OPINION: ISRAEL’S GOVERNMENT FAILED. TEARING IT DOWN RIGHT NOW WOULD BE WORSEThe question is not simply whether Bibi still has time to strike.It is whether he and Trump have a credible way to finish the job.Arie Blitz is a retired physician and independent writer in Weslaco, Texas, who writes on foreign policy, medical ethics, and public policy.