Can Netanyahu take Israel to war with Iran despite US opposition?

Senior figures in the emerging parliamentary majority have accused caretaker Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of pushing for a unilateral military operation against Iran without U.S. backing, despite reported opposition from the IDF chief and other senior security officials, as a political confrontation intensifies over the possibility of renewed war.

One senior figure in the bloc seeking to replace Netanyahu accused the outgoing prime minister of having “gone off the rails” and attempting to drag Israel into a war at any cost, allegedly to exhaust the period allotted to Eisenkot to assemble a coalition.

According to senior figures in the bloc, Netanyahu has been pressing for military action against Iran but has encountered resistance from IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir and other senior defense officials.

The United States is aware of Netanyahu’s intentions and has blocked him from proceeding on at least one occasion, according to the account.

Under Section 40 of Israel’s Basic Law: The Government, a decision to go to war, or to undertake a significant military operation that is highly likely to lead to war, requires authorization from the government or its Security Cabinet.

The provision does not distinguish between an ordinary government and a caretaker administration, meaning Netanyahu retains legal authority to oversee military operations, subject to the required approval procedures.

The Security Cabinet is scheduled to meet Sunday, its first meeting in more than a month. It last convened Oct. 4, while Israel was still in the midst of its election campaign.

At that meeting, ministers decided to increase military preparedness for several scenarios involving Iran, including a potential Israeli strike and a surprise Iranian attack.

The Cabinet could now authorize action against Iran, whether formally designated a war or a military operation.

The prospect has generated particular concern among Netanyahu’s political opponents, who argue that any major offensive during the transition could interfere with Eisenkot’s efforts to establish a new government.

Former Cabinet secretary Oved Yehezkel said claims that a caretaker government is categorically prohibited from going to war are too sweeping and do not accurately reflect Israeli law.

According to Yehezkel, restrictions on caretaker governments primarily concern appointments and budgetary decisions, while governments retain broad discretion in foreign affairs and national security.

Yair Lapid, who served as caretaker prime minister during Israel’s 2022 military operation in Gaza, offered a different emphasis, arguing that a transitional government should not undertake measures that fundamentally alter the country’s circumstances.

A caretaker government, he said, is precisely that: an administration intended to manage affairs until a new government takes office.

Israel’s recent history offers precedents supporting both arguments.

In May 2021, Netanyahu led a caretaker government during Operation Guardian of the Walls, an 11-day conflict with Hamas in Gaza. That fighting began after Hamas fired rockets toward Jerusalem, making Israel’s military campaign a response to an attack rather than a preemptive initiative.

In August 2022, Lapid and then-defense minister Benny Gantz launched Operation Breaking Dawn against Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza without convening the Security Cabinet.

The operation, which involved the mobilization of 25,000 reservists, received the approval of Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara.

Although it was a limited operation launched in response to a specific intelligence warning rather than a full-scale war, it demonstrated that a caretaker government can initiate military action.

Figures in Eisenkot’s political bloc argue that the distinction lies between responding to an imminent threat supported by intelligence and initiating a war for political purposes.

Even without manufacturing a threat, however, a government could argue that a particular security danger requires immediate action.

Another complication is the limited parliamentary oversight available during the transition between governments.

There is also no formally designated opposition leader to receive classified security briefings. Lapid ceased serving in that role following the swearing-in of the new parliament Tuesday.

Netanyahu’s critics have also raised concerns about the independence of senior security officials, arguing that relatively few institutional checks remain on the prime minister’s authority.

Mossad Director Roman Gofman and Shin Bet chief David Zini were appointed by Netanyahu, prompting criticism from opponents who contend that they owe their positions to him.

However, appointments by the prime minister are the standard procedure under Israeli law and do not, by themselves, establish that the officials lack independence.

Zamir was also appointed by Netanyahu, yet reports indicate that the military chief has opposed launching an attack on Iran under the current circumstances.

Israeli law therefore neither prohibits a caretaker government from going to war nor grants it unlimited authority to do so.

The central legal requirement is that decisions to launch a war or a major military operation likely to trigger one must be approved by the government or Security Cabinet, rather than made by the prime minister alone. Beyond that, oversight is largely political, parliamentary and public rather than judicial.

The controversy follows a telephone conversation over the weekend between Netanyahu and Trump, during which the two leaders discussed Iran amid disagreements between Jerusalem and Washington over the possibility of resuming military operations against the Islamic Republic.

A source familiar with the conversation described it as exceptionally confrontational, while American officials said it involved extensive shouting. One source characterized it as “a shouting match from hell.”

Netanyahu’s office strongly disputed those accounts, insisting that the conversation had gone well.

Following the call, Netanyahu told the Knesset that “Iran is working to renew the nuclear threat” and that “the only way to permanently eliminate this existential threat is to overthrow the mullah regime.”

In recent weeks, Netanyahu has discussed possible operations against Iran with senior security officials, including actions that could provoke a severe Iranian response.

According to reports, Zamir strongly opposed such moves during the politically sensitive period preceding the election.

In a formal letter, Eisenkot stressed that Netanyahu no longer commands the confidence of the Knesset, with only 46 lawmakers supporting his continued tenure.

“I am addressing you as someone who still holds the reins of government and who remains responsible at this time for the security of the State of Israel, the IDF and the security forces,” Eisenkot wrote. “At this time, as you know very well, you are serving as a caretaker prime minister who no longer enjoys the confidence of the Knesset. Only 46 members of Knesset still support your continued tenure as prime minister.”

Eisenkot said recent reports had raised serious concerns about the introduction of political considerations into national security decisions.

“In recent weeks, deeply troubling reports have emerged concerning the introduction of ulterior considerations into the most sacred of responsibilities: Israel’s security,” he wrote. “In this complex and sensitive political situation, perhaps the most sensitive our country has ever known, you have a duty to exercise exceptional caution and responsibility in making security and national decisions, as well as in instructing the heads of security organizations regarding decisions requiring the prime minister’s approval.”

He warned that deploying security forces without an urgent and immediate threat could have devastating consequences.

“Deploying security forces in the absence of a direct and immediate threat that cannot be postponed could have devastating consequences for Israeli democracy and for citizens’ trust in the institutions of government,” Eisenkot wrote. “Therefore, I demand that you demonstrate national responsibility during this sensitive period. Exercise restraint and caution regarding dangerous moves that can wait until a new government enjoying the confidence of the Knesset is sworn in.”

He also warned Netanyahu against undermining public confidence in the decision-making process or placing senior security officials in a constitutional dilemma.

“Do not undermine the public’s trust in the institutions of government and the decision-making process,” Eisenkot wrote. “You must not place the heads of the security establishment in a severe constitutional conflict, leaving them uncertain about what is required of them and what is right to do. Allow them to uphold, without doubt, the sacred duty entrusted to them.”

Eisenkot separately appealed to Attorney General Baharav-Miara, asking her to intervene after his attempts to obtain regular security briefings from Netanyahu’s office were unsuccessful.

He requested comprehensive updates on current threats and access to intelligence assessments, arguing that such briefings were necessary to ensure effective oversight and proper national security decision-making during the government transition.

“Israel is facing a challenging and volatile security reality, as the outgoing prime minister himself has repeatedly acknowledged in public statements,” Eisenkot wrote. “The period of transition before a new government is established requires particularly close scrutiny of any action or use of force that could affect the State of Israel and its citizens.”

Eisenkot noted that Israeli prime ministers traditionally brief opposition leaders on security developments and intelligence assessments, both during routine periods and times of heightened tension.

However, because the new Knesset has been sworn in and no new opposition leader has been appointed, that channel is temporarily unavailable.

“Under the current legal circumstances, there is no opposition leader at this time,” Eisenkot wrote. “Therefore, in the absence of a new opposition leader, and as the person entrusted by the president with the mandate to form a government, it is appropriate that I receive regular, structured and comprehensive security briefings, as well as access to intelligence assessments.”

He also emphasized the importance of ensuring that military and operational decisions receive the required authorization.

“It is of paramount importance to ensure that every operational and military action is brought before the Cabinet and government for proper discussion and approval, as required by law,” he wrote. “Unfortunately, my team’s attempts to coordinate an orderly briefing and discussion with the outgoing prime minister’s team have been unsuccessful.”

Eisenkot said he had also approached the Knesset’s legal adviser and was seeking Baharav-Miara’s intervention to protect national security interests and maintain effective oversight.

Netanyahu’s office responded angrily, rejecting Eisenkot’s accusations and insisting that all government security decisions had been based exclusively on professional considerations.

“All decisions made by the government under Prime Minister Netanyahu’s leadership were based solely on security considerations and made in full coordination with the security establishment,” the statement said. “They have delivered unprecedented achievements for the State of Israel, and that will continue to be the case. Instead of sowing fear and division, one must act responsibly.”

The Prime Minister’s Office accused Eisenkot of irresponsibly discussing sensitive security issues in public.

“Eisenkot’s letter is an irresponsible move that publicly discusses sensitive security matters. It is a transparent attempt to politicize Israel’s national security issues,” the statement said. “Instead of trying to form a government with supporters of terrorism, Prime Minister Netanyahu once again calls on Gadi Eisenkot to join a government that fights terrorism.”

Eisenkot responded by challenging Netanyahu over the security briefings and the delay in convening the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

“If that is the case, why did you refuse my request for an operational briefing through the customary official channels?” he wrote. “Why are you trying to delay the convening of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee until next week?”

“I will not allow an oversight vacuum over a government that has lost the confidence of the Knesset. I will not allow even the slightest deviation from security considerations. That is my commitment.”

Netanyahu’s office subsequently disputed Eisenkot’s account, saying it had invited him to a security briefing even before he submitted his request.