The clock is ticking on Netanyahu’s decades-long Iran mission

With Israel’s election just weeks away, Netanyahu may be facing his final shot at eliminating the Iranian threat he has spent three decades warning against.

By Jordan Levy, World Israel News

For nearly three decades, Benjamin Netanyahu has been telling anyone who would listen that Israel’s wars with Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations are ultimately branches of a much larger struggle.

The root, of course, is Tehran.

He has called Iran the “head of the octopus,” described preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon as one of the defining missions of his political life, and repeatedly warned that fighting Iran’s proxies without confronting their patron would leave the central threat intact.

Today, after three years of regional war and unprecedented Israeli and American strikes inside Iran, that argument is no longer theoretical. Hamas has been devastated, Hezbollah severely weakened, and Iran itself has suffered enormous damage to its nuclear, missile and military infrastructure.

But Iran remains dangerous, and few in Israel would argue that the threat has disappeared.

What remains unresolved is how far Israel intends to go to eliminate it.

And with Israelis heading to the polls on Oct. 27, there is a growing sense of urgency. Netanyahu has spent much of his political career defining the Iranian threat, and if he intends to finish what Israel has started, the approaching election raises the possibility that his window to do so as prime minister could be closing fast.

A Warning Spanning Three Decades

Iran has been at the center of Netanyahu’s worldview since long before October 7.

In 1996, just weeks after becoming prime minister for the first time, Netanyahu used his first address to a joint session of Congress to single out Iran as the most dangerous regime in the region.

“The most dangerous of these regimes is Iran,” Netanyahu told lawmakers, warning that if Tehran acquired nuclear weapons, the consequences could be catastrophic not only for Israel and the Middle East, but “for all of mankind.”

Even then, Netanyahu argued that deterrence might not be enough.

“Deterrence by itself may not be sufficient,” he warned. “Deterrence must now be reinforced with prevention, immediate and effective prevention.”

“Time is running out,” he added.

Sixteen years later, Netanyahu stood before the United Nations holding his now-famous cartoon bomb and drew a red line across it, warning that Iran was approaching the point at which its nuclear program could become impossible to stop.

Three years later, he addressed Congress against the wishes of the Obama administration to campaign against the emerging Iran nuclear agreement.

And in 2018, he stood before shelves filled with material seized by Mossad agents from a secret Tehran warehouse and presented Iran’s nuclear archive to the world.

“Iran lied. Big time,” Netanyahu declared.

From the Tentacles to the Head

October 7 demonstrated the terrible effectiveness of the regional network Iran spent decades building.

Tehran poured money, weapons, training and expertise into Hamas. Hezbollah opened a northern front. The Houthis attacked Israel and international shipping. Iranian-backed militias targeted Israel and American forces. Eventually, Iran itself directly launched missiles and drones against Israel.

Netanyahu’s octopus had come into view.

After October 7, Israel began systematically dismantling pieces of that network.

“We are systematically severing the terrorist limbs of the Iranian octopus, and we are striking the head of the octopus,” Netanyahu said in October 2024.

Then the confrontation moved decisively to Iran itself.

Massive Israeli and American strikes inflicted severe damage on Iran’s nuclear, missile and military infrastructure, turning what Netanyahu had discussed for decades as a future confrontation into an actual war.

Months later, Netanyahu estimated that Israel had completed “80-90% of the work” against Iran’s nuclear threat.

“We need to complete what remains,” he said.

“Our pilots were there and can be there at any moment.”

Days later, he went further, calling the overthrow of the Iranian regime Israel’s “central mission” and saying the goal was now “within reach.”

“The regime is now faltering. It is weaker than ever. It is fighting for its survival,” Netanyahu said. “I am confident in our ability to remove this threat once and for all, in other words, to topple this regime.”

Netanyahu drove the point home again in his recent address to the United Nations.

“One day, and it may not be far away, the Iranian people will be free,” he said. “Their murderous regime will be toppled by its lies, by its corruption, by its cruelty. This evil regime will fall, and we will all celebrate that day.”

Delay the Threat, or Change the Equation?

That distinction may now be the heart of the issue.

Israel and the United States can destroy centrifuges, missile factories, air defenses and command centers. They can kill commanders and nuclear scientists and set Iran’s programs back months or years.

But if the same regime remains in power, it will eventually attempt to rebuild.

Another round of strikes could therefore buy Israel more time without fundamentally resolving the problem.

If the goal is lasting strategic change, regime change is the only outcome that could fundamentally alter the equation.

That does not mean Israel can simply bomb a new government into existence. The fate of the Islamic Republic ultimately depends on the Iranian people, and whatever follows the current regime would carry its own uncertainties.

But without fundamental political change in Tehran, Israel risks once again kicking the Iranian problem down the road.

The Election Clock

That is where Netanyahu’s personal political timetable becomes significant.

Israel’s election is less than two weeks away.

Netanyahu could win another mandate. Or the election could ultimately end his latest tenure as prime minister. For a politician who has spent three decades defining Iran as the central strategic threat to Israel, that uncertainty creates obvious urgency.

If Netanyahu believes the regime is weaker than ever and that a historic opportunity now exists to fundamentally change the Iranian threat, he must also consider the possibility that a future Israeli government may not make the same decision.

Waiting could mean surrendering that decision to his successor.

Recent reporting suggests the possibility of renewed military action before the election has been discussed seriously.

Axios reported this week that Netanyahu and President Donald Trump discussed the possibility of another major operation against Iran before Israel’s Oct. 27 election and the U.S. midterms. Netanyahu reportedly pointed to Israeli intelligence indicating that Iran was taking troubling steps to rebuild its nuclear program.

The discussions took place before Trump publicly announced that the United States would not attack Iran before the Nov. 3 midterms.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon has instructed U.S. Central Command to complete preparations for the possible resumption of major combat operations against Iran, though no final decision to strike has been made.

Netanyahu himself pushed back Wednesday against suggestions that he wants to initiate another war before Israelis vote, telling Army Radio that the timing was “not convenient for us” and “no good.”

There is no basis to conclude that Netanyahu would launch a war simply for electoral reasons. A decision of that magnitude would depend on intelligence, military readiness, Washington and the judgment of Israel’s security establishment.

But the political calendar cannot be separated entirely from the strategic one.

The Opposition Pushes Back

Netanyahu’s opponents are already questioning whether another operation is necessary now.

Gadi Eisenkot, the former IDF chief of staff and Netanyahu’s leading challenger, said this week that he was unaware of any “critical” development requiring an immediate strike.

“After three years of war, in my eyes, the prime minister is not fit to carry out another operation,” Eisenkot said.

Significantly, Eisenkot does not dispute the broader goal. He called the Iranian regime’s downfall “necessary,” but argued that it cannot be accomplished through military force alone and must ultimately come from the Iranian people.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid has also challenged the urgency surrounding a possible pre-election operation. Citing intelligence available to him, Lapid said he does not expect a war with Iran before the election and accused Netanyahu of using the prospect of conflict to dominate the campaign agenda.

“The prime minister can dominate the agenda by warning of an imminent terrorist attack or a war with Iran,” Lapid said. “Whether that is good for Israel is a question voters should ask themselves.”

Netanyahu’s Final Shot?

Netanyahu has spent decades describing Iran as the greatest threat to Israel’s existence and preventing it from acquiring the means to destroy the Jewish state as one of his most important responsibilities as prime minister.

Now, with Iran weakened and an election approaching that could end his time in office, he may believe this is his final opportunity to remove that threat for good.

If Netanyahu truly sees this as a matter of Israel’s survival, he may be unwilling to take the chance that the opportunity passes, or that the decision is left to someone else.

Benjamin NetanyahuIsrael-Iran warIsraeli elections