American Knots: Iranians in Netanyahu’s Early Elections

There is a precedent in “Israel” that Prime Minister Netanyahu will follow wherein he will hold elections earlier at an opportune time to coalesce popular power. There are multiple motivations for his undeclared reasons behind his position. So what led to this position and what are the limits of his success?

In 1996 he was first elected prime minister over his rival, Shimon Peres, whom the U.S. administration, headed by Bill Clinton, supported at the time. In 1999, when he lost the battle for reelection to the rival Labor Party Chairman, Ehud Barak, it seemed that Clinton managed to stay out after failing the first time.

It seems that Netanyahu feared that President Obama would assume the same role. In a timely manner, Netanyahu confronted America, spoiled their plans for a two-state solution and severely embarrassed Washington’s policies in the region, particularly towards Egypt, Jordan and others. Today, the positions seem similar. Obama is committed to a two-state solution; the Jewish lobby rallied and tried to pressure Obama toward a joint or individual military strike on Iran over its nuclear program. They embarrassed Obama before his rival Mitt Romney in an attempt to address the Iranian enrichment program and serve Tel Aviv in a solo strike against Tehran. Therefore, Netanyahu believes that Obama will work against him if the Israeli election remains in Nov. or Oct. 2, 2013, for Netanyahu believes that Obama will be free from restrictions if he wins. Netanyahu could then place him under exceptional pressure.

All this does not necessarily mean that there are no internal reasons for early elections, but they are all secondary. The economic situation does not constitute an electoral burden from Netanyahu’s point of view so long as the security of his base motives regarding the danger of Iran’s nuclear program trumps the concerns on the streets over “Israel.” Recently many polls confirmed this by large margins.

Socioeconomic issues are not expected to play a prominent role in political mobilization for the elections, considering that the security risks to “Israel” are high both because of the repercussions of the Arab movement, especially in Egypt and Syria, and because of the Iranian nuclear project. Furthermore, with no political movement or leader, Netanyahu can count on the issue of security. However, recent public opinion polls in “Israel” show that the emergence of significant challenges by the left of center parties are not large, and therefore will not affect the chances of the Likud and far-right parties coming back into the arena again in the early elections scheduled for January of next year.

Public opinion polls in “Israel” indicate that the election may be closer than it actually is but that depends on whether the course of events remains unchanged in the region and there are no changes in “Israel” by the time of elections next January. However, significant events in the region may change such as war, attacks on settlements or other issues and may affect public opinion trends in “Israel.” However, “Israeli” society remains highly concerned with security, and “Israel” is moving more to the right.

In any case, Benjamin Netanyahu promises the “Israeli” political community that the regional and international developments will not impede his ability to maneuver and manipulate in order to get what he wants. Will he fulfill his international plans, especially regarding Tehran, by playing on U.S. sensitivity around the time of the election between Obama and Romney? Most former “Israeli” prime ministers have mastered the investment and exploitation of American elections to the fullest, and it seems so far that Netanyahu will strengthen the already existing American knot and then manipulate Iranians in this direction.