Middle East
Likud weighs rotation premiership between Netanyahu and Eisenkot
Officials within the Likud party and Benjamin Netanyahu’s inner circle are analysing a scenario in which the formation of a narrow coalition proves impossible and the political system enters a deadlock.
According to a report in The Jerusalem Post, one option being discussed by Likud officials in such a scenario is a broad coalition government featuring a rotation of the premiership between Netanyahu and Yashar party leader Gadi Eisenkot.
At this stage, the primary question occupying analysts is what Netanyahu could offer to persuade Eisenkot to establish a rotation government with him, and how he could convince him that the rotation agreement would be honoured this time, following the precedent set during the Netanyahu-Benny Gantz government.
Among the possibilities raised in Likud’s closed-door discussions is nominating Netanyahu for the presidency in the future.
This would create both an agreed political exit route for Netanyahu and a political guarantee that the premiership would ultimately pass to Eisenkot.
At this stage, these discussions represent strategic assessments and scenario analyses surrounding Netanyahu’s “broad coalition” campaign ahead of the elections.
Likud officials believe that Netanyahu could conclude the election without reaching 61 seats, but they also rely on the likelihood that the opposition bloc will lack sufficient seats to form a government.
If neither side can form a coalition, officials anticipate that pressure to avert a new election could bring the possibility of a unity government back to the agenda.
Eisenkot is viewed as one of the primary potential partners for such a move, provided he enters the election at the head of a major force within the anti-Netanyahu bloc.
According to the scenario discussed in Likud, one potential arrangement would involve Netanyahu assuming the premiership first under the rotation framework and subsequently handing the post over to Eisenkot.
However, the most obvious obstacle to such a step is the crisis of confidence caused by the rotation government established with Gantz in 2020.
Eisenkot would require a mechanism ensuring that he does not find himself in the identical position Gantz occupied at that time: namely, becoming a partner in a rotation government agreement that was never implemented.
In this context, the possibility of the presidency is also raised in the discussions. Under this scenario, the date of the leadership handover could be tied to Netanyahu moving to the President’s Residence following the conclusion of Isaac Herzog’s term in office.
Those raising this possibility believe such a step could offer Netanyahu an agreed political destination after the end of his term as prime minister, whilst simultaneously providing Eisenkot with greater confidence that the rotation will take place.
Even within Likud, officials emphasise that the presidency scenario remains far from a finalised plan, with some describing it as a remote possibility.
Nevertheless, the matter is already being discussed as part of efforts to find a mechanism capable of overcoming the trust deficit.
According to an assessment voiced within Likud, if the presidency scenario arises in the future, Netanyahu’s criminal trial would need to be concluded.
From a legal perspective, the argument in these discussions is that no automatic legal barrier prevents an individual standing trial from running for the presidency.
The real complexity would lie in the public and political dimensions.
Proponents of this scenario believe that it would also be possible to present such a step to the public as part of a broader arrangement that would end Netanyahu’s premiership and enable the formation of a stable government.
This discussion also explains the line Netanyahu has advocated in recent weeks regarding the necessity of establishing a “broad government”.
Likud officials assess that Netanyahu understands a 61-seat right-wing government is not a guaranteed outcome, and therefore believes it is important to prepare the public and political ground in advance for the possibility of incorporating figures from the opposition camp into the government after the elections.
If the results show that neither bloc holds a majority, Netanyahu could argue that voters did not deliver a decisive victory to either side, and that under these conditions there is no justification for excluding a large segment of the public from the government.
However, the Gantz precedent will remain at the heart of all future discussions. Likud officials are aware that Netanyahu’s political promise alone will not suffice.
For this reason, alongside the presidency concept, more practical mechanisms are being examined in political discussions: commitments regarding the budget and no-confidence votes, legal mechanisms designed to make breaching the agreement difficult, and even the possibility of depositing a letter of resignation with a trustee that would take effect should Netanyahu fail to fulfil his commitments.
Likud officials also point to a fundamental difference between such a scenario and the Netanyahu-Gantz government.
If election results do not provide Netanyahu with an independent majority and he must rely on Eisenkot to keep the government afloat, this dependency would itself become another component of the guarantee system.
Unlike a situation where the partnership could be dissolved and an alternative coalition formed, a breach of the agreement in this scenario could lead to the collapse of the entire government. The number of seats Likud secures will also prove decisive.
In light of current expectations, Likud officials estimate that winning more than 25 to 26 seats would be presented as a success, allowing Netanyahu to argue that he remains the leader of a major political camp that cannot be ignored when forming a government.
Conversely, a significantly weaker result would undermine his ability to demand the first turn in the rotation and shift the balance of power in future negotiations.
Middle East
Over 3,000 Palestinians displaced as Israel’s Hebron siege hits day 5
The Israeli army’s siege of the city of Hebron in the occupied West Bank has entered its fifth day. More than 3,000 Palestinians have been forced to flee their homes as raids, house demolitions, and forced evictions continue across the city.
According to data shared by Hebron Municipality on 26 October, the number of displaced people has reached 3,189. More than 200 of them are infants.
Municipal authorities announced that roughly half of the total displaced population consists of children and youths under the age of 18.
Palestinian officials in the besieged city declared a state of emergency and established an urgent crisis desk.
Rami Khamis, a member of the crisis desk, highlighted civic solidarity in remarks to Al Jazeera, saying local residents and benefactors who refused to let their fellow citizens stay in temporary shelters opened their homes to displaced families.
A Palestinian forced to abandon his home in haste recounted his ordeal to Al Jazeera on 26 October.
Explaining that they fled with only the clothes on their backs, the resident said their savings, household goods, and official documents were left behind. After placing his family in a relatively safe place, he attempted to return to salvage their belongings, but could not reach the house because the area was no longer safe.
The siege began immediately after an attack on 23 October in which two Israeli soldiers were killed. The two Palestinians who carried out the assault were killed at the scene by Israeli forces.
Citing this incident, the Israeli army blockaded the city and launched wide-ranging operations. The British newspaper The Guardian described the measures carried out in Hebron as “collective punishment”.
Hamas official Mahmoud Mardawi also condemned both the siege in Hebron and the military incursions spreading across the occupied West Bank in a statement on 26 October.
Emphasising that these steps constitute collective punishment, Mardawi warned that escalating tensions on the ground could lead to grave consequences.
Mardawi further argued that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government are using these attacks for propaganda and electoral calculations, stating that military pressure will not break Palestinian resilience and that calculations regarding annexation and mass expulsion will fail to achieve their goal.
Operation rift in Israeli leadership
As the blockade entered its fifth day, a divergence of opinion emerged between Israel’s military brass and the government.
According to a report in the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clashed over the future of the operation.
Zamir argued that the military campaign on the ground had delivered whatever benefit it could provide and that it was now time to bring it to an end.
Military officials said tangible gains achieved throughout the operation remained limited, indicating that whether to sustain the current push required reassessment.
Indeed, the newspaper reported that Israeli forces managed to seize only a limited number of weapons in the city, failing to uncover any unusual arsenals or major arms caches.
However, Chief of Staff Zamir’s proposal to end the operation was rejected. Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Defence Minister dismissed the recommendation and decided to continue the offensive.
At least 70 Palestinians have been detained in Hebron since the siege and operations began. The Israeli army is also continuing extensive demolition activities targeting civilian homes across the city.
Middle East
US envoy says Syria interim leader Sharaa seeks Israel normalization
US Ambassador to Türkiye and Special Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack stated that Syria’s interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, wants to normalize relations with Israel.
At the same time, he called for an end to Israel’s military operations in Syria and questioned whether Washington should intervene to halt them.
Speaking at the Global Security Forum held in Doha, Qatar, Barrack said Sharaa had managed difficult circumstances well and was trying to reassure Israel that his government poses no threat.
“I think President Sharaa has done a very good job under very difficult circumstances,” Barrack said, describing the message he believes the Syrian leader is conveying to Israel: “I am not aggressive, I have no problem with Israel, I want relations with Israel to normalize.”
Barrack also urged Israel to stop its operations in Syria, while voicing uncertainty over whether the US should step in to end them:
“It’s time to stop this [Israel’s actions in Syria]. I don’t know if it’s time for the US to intervene to stop it.”
Israel intensified its military operations in Syria following the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad on 8 December 2024. Israeli forces entered the demilitarized “buffer zone” along the Golan Heights and took up positions on the Syrian side of Mount Hermon (Jabal al-Shaykh), with Israel describing the deployment as a temporary security measure.
Israeli air strikes have also targeted military facilities and weapons depots across the country.
Barrack pointed to Syria’s political transition as an example of how groups once viewed as adversaries could be incorporated into new political and security structures.
“You can take Nusra, which was once designated a foreign terrorist organization; following the transformation that took place on December 8, many people today evaluate this example as ‘here is a model,'” the US diplomat said.
The Nusra Front was a jihadist group that emerged during the Syrian civil war and, after pledging allegiance to al-Qaeda, announced its departure from the network. The organization was designated as “terrorist” by several countries and bodies, primarily the US and the UN.
The group’s leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa (Abu Mohammad al-Julani), subsequently headed Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which led the offensive that ousted Assad.
Barrack also highlighted the integration of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) into the Syrian national army as an outcome many had previously considered unlikely.
“Nobody thought you could reintegrate this Kurdish entity, the SDF, into a national army, but it happened,” the US official said.
Damascus and the Kurdish-led forces signed an agreement on 10 March 2025 to integrate the SDF’s military and civilian institutions into the Syrian state.
However, delays occurred in the implementation of the agreement due to disputes over integration terms and the future of self-administration in the region.
Barrack nevertheless expressed doubts about the effectiveness of earlier US interventions in the Middle East, citing Washington’s involvement in what he characterized as “23 regime changes” across the wider region.
“Whenever we have tried to intervene, to change a person or a regime, it seems to have been a mistake,” Barrack said, while also questioning the value of US intervention in Yemen, describing it as apparently “senseless.”
Middle East
US and Israel weigh Iran strikes after midterm vote, reports say
The US and Israeli defence ministries have drawn up plans for a fresh assault on Iran, with the envisioned offensive under consideration to launch after the US Congressional midterm elections on 3 November.
Citing sources, The New York Times reported that the blueprint anticipates a brief but intense campaign.
As military units step up their drills, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth discussed prospective strike options with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The list of targets encompasses Iran’s nuclear sites, its energy infrastructure, and its arsenals of missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.
Several officials who spoke to the newspaper argued that a new wave of attacks could deal a heavy blow to the Iranian economy, forcing the leadership in Tehran into concessions.
Conversely, other sources doubt whether a resumption of fighting would prove any more successful than the earlier campaign conducted between February and April.
That previous offensive drove energy prices higher and drained US stockpiles of interceptor missiles.
It remains unclear whether US President Donald Trump will authorise the operation.
Domestic political calculations in Israel could also influence the trajectory of the plans, given that the country faces general elections on 27 October.
While some experts speaking to the newspaper contended that Netanyahu could leverage the threat of war to form a national unity government, others pointed to the opposition’s distrust of the prime minister.
Washington fears regional spillover
The US administration also harbours concerns that the fighting could engulf the wider region. On Wednesday, the US State Department ordered non-essential government personnel and their family members to leave Saudi Arabia following attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis.
A US military build-up, comprising three aircraft carriers, fighter aircraft, and special forces units, is slated to be fully deployed to the region by early November.
The targets under review include the deep underground nuclear facility code-named “Pickaxe”. Trump suggested that the high-yield GBU-43/B bomb, known as the “mother of all bombs”, could be deployed against the site, though experts doubt whether the ordnance can destroy a complex buried so deeply.
For its part, Tehran is preparing for a potential escalation, threatening to broaden its target list. Retaliatory options under consideration by Iran reportedly include data centres and subsea internet cables, in addition to shipping and energy facilities.
Mehdi Mohammadi, an adviser to an Iranian negotiator, dismissed US hopes of wrapping up a new campaign within 72 hours as a “fantasy”. Mohammadi warned that Tehran’s response would be more severe and unpredictable.
The Financial Times previously reported that an Israeli strike on Iran set for 10 October had been called off because the US president was unwilling to risk a broader conflict ahead of the Congressional midterms.
According to that report, the Israeli military had prepared a multi-day assault on nuclear sites, Iranian government targets, power plants, and civilian infrastructure on Netanyahu’s orders. The strikes had been designed to exceed the intensity of the campaign begun in February.
Washington seeks to secure an agreement from Tehran covering both the Strait of Hormuz and its nuclear programme.
“It will either be a deal or a strike,” one source told the Financial Times, adding that an operation could get under way in the coming weeks.
Another official who spoke to the paper suggested that Israeli preparations might serve as leverage to squeeze Iran in negotiations.
Axios also reported that the Pentagon had issued orders to prepare for renewed strikes, though the directive contained no specific date and Trump has yet to take a final decision.
The US and Israel launched their offensive against Iran on 28 February. Iran hit back by targeting US and Israeli assets across the region and curbing vessel transit through the Strait of Hormuz.
Although both sides signed a memorandum of understanding in June that provided for a ceasefire and talks to lift the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, reciprocal attacks between the US and Iran have persisted.
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoSWP urges backing for Gulf trade routes bypassing Strait of Hormuz
-
Europe2 weeks agoLSE study finds post-bailout Greece turned into a cafe economy
-
America1 week agoHow Elon Musk fuses private empire with state power, Ben Tarnoff explains
-
Europe1 week agoAfD leader Weidel calls funding lost Ukraine war a grave mistake
-
Middle East1 week agoEgypt delays parliamentary vote on deploying troops to Saudi Arabia
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoIMF warns global economy is nearing the limits of its resilience
-
Europe1 week agoEU rejects US proposal to resume Russian gas flows through Ukraine
-
America2 weeks agoMusk boosts Republican midterm funding despite pledge to curb spending
