+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Through deal, Bibi buys 'industrial peace' for Iran war

It wasn’t domestic politics that prompted Netanyahu last night to forgo early elections; it was the need to clear out his calendar. 

Why does a national leader decide to scrap new elections that he and everyone else knows he’s going to win by a landslide, which is what Bibi did last night? Because he’s got important work to do and he wants what’s called “industrial peace” – or, as Netanyahu himself put it, “stability.” Our national leader wants to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities and he’s waiting for the right opportunity to do so – when the Obama administration is hard put to stop him, meaning sometime between now and the November 2 U.S. presidential elections. Starting such a war is going to require every gram of attention and effort Bibi can call forth, and he doesn’t want the pressure of elections and forming a new government as (huge) distractions, which he would have had from now into October if he’d gone ahead with elections in September. Now, without those elections and with an absolutely unshakable coalition, he can give his full concentration to saving Israel from annihilation, as he sees it.

The argument that he made the deal with Kadima for domestic political reasons doesn’t wash. Domestic political reasons – mainly the growing public pressure to draft the haredim (ultra-Orthodox), who were vital to his coalition government  – made perfect sense for why he would go to early elections, as he seemed certain to do until very late last night. With elections ahead and thus no need to worry about preserving his coalition, he could campaign all summer on drafting the haredim, then, after the elections, water the plan down to nothing, thereby keeping his haredi allies content.

So if Bibi had just wanted to solve his domestic political problems, he would have gone ahead and called early elections. But then he would have been preoccupied with them for the next six months. By deciding against early elections, he’s keeping his calendar free. This is going to be a very, very busy time for him. He’s got a big project to finish, one he’s been talking about over and over and over for more than a decade. He doesn’t want anything to get in the way.

And if Netanyahu had done the expected thing and called new elections, that, too, would have been because he thought it would give him a freer hand to bomb Iran. He’s not worried about political survival – one way or another, with elections or without, he’s king of the hill and nobody can knock him off. No, he has a mission of national survival to accomplish sometime in the coming months, before it’s too late, and all his calculations are guided by his sacred duty to fulfill that mission. Everything else is commentary.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Noam Sheizaf


      Reply to Comment
    2. ginger

      Chilling assessment and I believe you’re spot on

      Bibi is going to try to do Iran come h*ll or high water

      Bibi must be STOPPED

      Reply to Comment
    3. Piotr Berman

      I still think that the attack in Iran is not really possible, and the strongest reason is that it may have tragic consequences on the NATO troops in Afghanistan. Because of drone attacks Pakistani parliament is quite hostile and did not restore suspended transit rights for NATO. If on top of that Central Asia will be closed too, AND insurgents get missile weapons do destroy helicopters and tanks AND Shia minority in Afghanistan, so far, most peaceful, will join insurgency, we are talking about Dien Bien Phu scenario. Israel would get indirect blowback from American public.

      I would rather think that Netanyahu prefers to ensure that the Cabinet will not allow for such an action without him and Barak changing their ostensible position. But there is a puzzle what Mofaz wants to achieve. In principle, secular Jews of Israel were split and awarding ultra-Orthodox various privileges, and veto on such secular ideas like civil marriage available for people of any religion or no religion. “Secular” reforms would respond to constituencies of Likud, Kadima and Israel Beitenu, and remove rationale for “Lapidism”. So it would make sense for these parties to make a temporary coalition and go through such a program. And a student of politics would recognize that if “it would make sense”, then the chances of that happening are very, very slim.

      Reply to Comment
    4. delia ruhe

      Larry, is that also Shaul Mofaz’s reason for joining the coalition — i.e., to make an attack on Iran a certainty?

      Reply to Comment
    5. Richard Witty

      I think an attack on Iran is highly unlikely.

      Virtually all of Israel’s current and former military leadership describe the logistics as impossible without the US physical support, including pressuring Saudi Arabia or other Gulf Arab state to allow Israeli jets to fly over airspace, even receive on the ground services.

      I don’t see it.

      It remains as blustery warning, not as plausible action.

      The coalition does not make it more likely to achieve US consent to an attack. I don’t know Mofaz’s views on an attack.

      Anyone else know?

      Thanks for fixing the comments section here, Larry, others.

      Reply to Comment