Israel’s inconclusive election has left neither major political bloc with a clear path to a governing majority.
As coalition negotiations begin, prolonged political uncertainty is a concern for a country confronting threats from Iran and its regional proxies. It also raises a question for Washington: Could Israel’s domestic divisions complicate an already critical security partnership?
Having just returned from covering the Israeli election, I believe this moment presents an opportunity. Israel’s political leaders can demonstrate to Americans across the political spectrum that, despite their bitter domestic rivalries, they remain united on a fundamental issue: the threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
That consensus matters not only to Israel, but to American national security.
Iran transcends Israel’s political divide
In my conversations across Israel’s political spectrum, I encountered broad recognition and consensus that Iran’s nuclear ambitions, missile capabilities, and support for armed proxies pose a grave threat to Israel. This concern extends beyond Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition to the political Center and Center-Left, including figures who oppose him.
American observers sometimes project the divisions of US politics onto Israel, assuming that skepticism toward military action or opposition to Netanyahu translates into a softer view of Iran. That is a mistake. Disagreement over leadership and military strategy does not necessarily mean disagreement over the nature of the threat.
A unity government would send a powerful signal to America that Israel’s approach to Iran rests on enduring national security interests, not the fortunes of a single party or prime minister. It would not eliminate disagreements over military tactics or the risks of escalation. It could, however, establish a broader political foundation for confronting shared threats.
Why Washington has a stake
The United States is divided over the Middle East. Some Americans who support Israel’s security also worry that further military action against Iran could draw Washington into another prolonged conflict. Others argue that allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons would create an even greater danger.
Israel cannot resolve America’s domestic political divisions, but it can avoid reinforcing the perception that the bilateral partnership is tied to a single Israeli leader or American political faction. That distinction is particularly important as the balance of power in one or both chambers of Congress could shift when the new Congress convenes in January 2027.
US President Donald Trump’s unusually explicit public endorsement of Netanyahu ahead of Israel’s election has made that challenge more acute. Previous American presidents have sometimes displayed preferences for Israeli candidates.
President Bill Clinton, for example, was widely seen as favoring Ehud Barak over Netanyahu during Israel’s 1999 election. Trump went further, explicitly endorsing Netanyahu and tying his support to the campaign against Iran.
When an American president publicly identifies one Israeli candidate as his preferred partner against Iran, opponents can more easily frame Israel’s security as a partisan issue.
A unity government could help counter that perception. It would demonstrate that the US-Israeli relationship is grounded in shared interests that endure beyond changes in leadership on either side.
Israel is a strategic asset
Israel’s value to American security extends beyond confronting Iran. The two countries cooperate on intelligence, missile defense, and regional security.
Israel’s advanced air and missile defenses and close military ties with Washington may also offer a more secure environment for US assets than bases elsewhere in the region, where American forces face persistent threats.
The Pentagon documented more than 170 attacks on US forces in Iraq and Syria between October 2023 and February 2024 alone.
US bases face political as well as military risks. During Turkey’s 2016 coup attempt, Ankara cut electricity to Incirlik Air Base, exposing American installations to pressure from host governments whose interests may diverge from Washington’s. Israel, by contrast, is a dependable strategic partner with shared interests and advanced defensive capabilities.
Iran’s missiles, drones, and regional proxies threaten US forces, shipping, and regional stability. A nuclear-armed Iran would raise the stakes further, making a stable Israel an important partner as Washington manages competing global priorities.
National security before political rivalry
A unity government would require difficult compromises. Netanyahu and his rivals have big personal and ideological differences. Opposition leaders would have to consider joining a government led by a prime minister they have sought to replace.
Netanyahu would benefit from distancing himself from the albatross of far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, whose positions have generated controversy in Israel and abroad.
Such a unity government would not automatically resolve disagreements over Gaza, Lebanon, Syria or the Palestinians. Its value would lie in establishing a broader basis for cooperation on immediate security challenges and relations with Washington.
The US should encourage this outcome through private diplomacy rather than public interference in Israel’s coalition negotiations. An explicit presidential demand for unity could deepen perceptions of American meddling. Quiet engagement with political leaders across the spectrum would be more constructive.
To Netanyahu, Gadi Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Lieberman, Yair Lapid and Yair Golan: consider what a broader national coalition could communicate to Israel’s closest ally. It could demonstrate that confronting Iran and maintaining a strong relationship with Washington transcend partisan divisions.
It could also create an opportunity to address concerns about extremist influence in government and settler violence, which have damaged Israel’s standing among some Americans.
A unity government may prove impossible. Israeli voters’ choices must be respected, and genuine disagreements cannot simply be wished away. But the absence of a clear electoral majority should not obscure the areas where cooperation remains possible.
The Iranian regime will remain a challenge to American and Israeli interests regardless of who occupies the White House or controls Congress in the years ahead.
Israel needs sustained American cooperation, including diplomatic support at a time when it faces growing international isolation. Both countries benefit when their relationship is understood as a durable strategic partnership rather than an extension of partisan politics.
Israel’s leaders need not agree on everything. But on the threat from Iran and the importance of the American alliance, they should demonstrate that national security comes before political rivalry.
Dr. Mandel is the director of MEPIN, the Middle East Political Information Network, and the senior security editor of The Jerusalem Post, Magazine, and The Jerusalem Report. He briefs members of Congress, their foreign policy aides, and the State Department.
