Iran has once again become a central issue in Israel’s political debate, with caretaker Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu facing accusations that he is using the threat of renewed conflict to protect his political future.
The controversy comes at a sensitive moment for Israeli politics. Following the October 27 parliamentary election, Netanyahu's Likud party emerged as the largest single party, but his wider political bloc failed to secure a parliamentary majority.
Opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot has since been allowed to form the next government, leaving Netanyahu in office in a caretaker capacity while negotiations continue.
Against this background, reports that Netanyahu wants Israel to prepare for possible renewed military action against Iran have intensified concerns among his political opponents.
An investigation published by Al Jazeera on November 13 argues that the Israeli leader's repeated warnings about Iran have helped create an atmosphere in which military confrontation can be presented as unavoidable.
The report examines whether this political climate could benefit Netanyahu as he struggles to retain influence.
What does 'Iranophobia' mean?
The term Iranophobia is used in the debate to describe the persistent portrayal of Iran as an existential danger to Israel and the political consequences of that perception.
Haggai Ram, an Israeli academic whose research examines the historical relationship between Israel and Iran, argues that fear of Tehran has become deeply embedded in Israeli political culture.
For decades, Israeli leaders have warned about Iran's nuclear ambitions and its support for armed groups across the Middle East. These concerns have been reinforced by confrontations involving Iran and Israel, including direct military exchanges.
Netanyahu has repeatedly presented Iran's nuclear programme and regional influence as major threats to Israel's security. His position has remained a defining feature of his political career.
However, critics argue that consistently describing Iran as an existential danger can narrow the space for diplomatic alternatives and make military action appear increasingly acceptable to the public.
The term does not mean that every Israeli concern about Iran is unfounded. Tehran's nuclear activities, missile capabilities and support for regional armed groups remain significant issues in the security calculations of Israel and other countries.
The debate is about how those threats are presented, how they influence public opinion and whether political considerations shape decisions about military action.
Political transition puts Netanyahu under pressure
Netanyahu's political difficulties have become more pronounced following the election, which did not produce a clear parliamentary majority for his coalition.
Eisenkot, a former Israeli military chief, received the mandate to attempt to form a new government. He has called for a broad national administration capable of addressing Israel's security and political challenges.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, has advocated a national unity government that would include his Likud party.
The competing political strategies have created uncertainty over the country's next leadership.
According to Al Jazeera's investigation, Israeli political analysts believe that a renewed confrontation with Iran could alter the domestic political atmosphere.
A major security crisis could put pressure on opposition parties to cooperate with the caretaker government rather than continue challenging its leadership.
Ahron Bregman, an Israeli political analyst at King's College London, suggested that a limited conflict could create circumstances in which opposition politicians would feel compelled to join a national unity government.
That possibility is particularly important because Netanyahu's opponents have accused him of using security concerns to maintain his position.
These remain political interpretations rather than established proof that the prime minister is planning military action primarily for personal reasons.
Military preparations raise fresh concerns
The political debate has intensified following reports that Israel's security cabinet instructed the military to increase preparations for a possible attack on Iran.
Israeli public broadcaster KAN reported on November 11 that the military had received new instructions relating to potential operations against Tehran.
The reports emerged after Eisenkot urged Netanyahu not to launch military operations without a direct and immediate security threat while the country remained under a caretaker government.
The disagreement reflects concerns about the authority of an outgoing administration to make decisions that could expose the country to another major conflict.
Netanyahu continues to exercise the powers of prime minister until a new government is formed. Israeli legal experts have noted that a caretaker government is not automatically prohibited from authorising military action, although the circumstances and justification for such decisions remain important.
A separate report by Israel's Channel 13, cited by The Times of Israel, said the military's assessment presented during a security briefing indicated there was no immediate need to strike Iran.
The different accounts underline the uncertainty surrounding the country's military intentions.
The United States faces a difficult diplomatic choice
Washington's position is another important factor in the possibility of renewed fighting.
US President Donald Trump has previously supported military action against Iran but has also indicated that he sees room for diplomacy and does not necessarily consider further strikes necessary at this stage.
Netanyahu has continued to argue for a much tougher approach, including his stated ambition to remove Iran's current leadership.
This creates a potential difference between the Israeli government's objectives and Washington's preferred approach.
The United States remains Israel's most important military and diplomatic ally. Any major Israeli operation against Iran could therefore have consequences for American policy, regional security and international energy markets.
Diplomatic efforts to reach an understanding with Tehran remain complicated by disagreements over its nuclear programme, sanctions and wider regional activities.
Could fear of Iran unite Israel's political rivals?
One of the central arguments in the Iranophobia debate is that the perception of an external threat can influence domestic political divisions.
Even politicians who strongly oppose Netanyahu may find it difficult to openly reject military action if a serious attack against Israel is considered imminent.
This creates a complicated situation for the opposition. Its leaders must balance their criticism of the caretaker government against their responsibility to address national security concerns.
Professor Daniel Bar-Tal, a political psychologist at Tel Aviv University, has suggested that the public's perception of Iran could make it difficult for political opponents to resist a renewed military campaign.
The argument is that years of warnings about Iran may have created expectations that confrontation is inevitable, regardless of which political party holds power.
However, Israeli society is not politically uniform. Views on military action, negotiations and Netanyahu's leadership remain divided, and the reaction to any future escalation cannot be assumed in advance.
A wider regional conflict remains a risk
Renewed fighting between Israel and Iran would carry consequences far beyond the two countries.
The previous confrontation disrupted regional security and affected important international trade and energy routes. Further escalation could involve other countries and armed groups across the Middle East.
Iran has also warned that any new attack could provoke a wider response.
For neighbouring states, the prospect of another conflict raises concerns about civilian casualties, economic disruption and the security of vital shipping routes.
The central question is therefore not only whether Netanyahu can maintain his political influence, but whether the region can avoid another cycle of military escalation.
As Israel's political transition continues, the handling of the Iranian threat is likely to remain a major test for both the outgoing government and the opposition seeking to replace it.
For Netanyahu's critics, the danger is that national security could become inseparable from the struggle for political survival. For those who support a tougher policy, the concern remains that failing to confront Iran could leave Israel exposed to serious threats.
The challenge facing Israeli leaders is to address genuine security risks without allowing political competition to determine decisions that could affect millions of people across the region.
