|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Israel’s national security direction could remain largely unchanged even if Benjamin Netanyahu eventually leaves office, according to a new analysis by Middle East security expert Dalia Dassa Kaye. In her October 27, 2026, article published in Foreign Affairs, Kaye argues that Netanyahu has reshaped Israel’s political and security environment so extensively that a change of government may not deliver the policy transformation many observers expect.
The analysis, titled The Israel Netanyahu Made: Why Bibi’s National Security Vision Will Endure, examines how years of political leadership, military confrontation and changing public attitudes have influenced Israel’s approach to regional security.
Netanyahu has been one of the most influential figures in Israeli politics for decades. His approach to Palestinian statehood, Iran and the use of military force has helped shape debates across the country’s political establishment.
Kaye’s central argument is that Netanyahu’s influence extends beyond his position as prime minister. Even politicians seeking to replace him may operate within a national security framework that has already moved significantly towards his long-standing positions.
This raises important questions about the future of Israeli foreign policy, the possibility of renewed negotiations with Palestinians and the country’s relationship with neighbouring states.
Netanyahu’s Influence on Israel’s National Security Policy
Benjamin Netanyahu’s political influence has developed over several decades, including multiple periods as prime minister. During this time, his government has repeatedly placed national security, military deterrence and opposition to Iranian regional influence at the centre of its political agenda.
One of the most significant changes highlighted by Kaye concerns the political debate surrounding Palestinian statehood.
Netanyahu has consistently opposed the establishment of an independent Palestinian state under the conditions proposed by many international diplomatic initiatives. His position has influenced Israeli political discussions and contributed to the declining prominence of Palestinian statehood as an immediate policy objective within important sections of the country’s political establishment.
Kaye argues that this change is particularly important because political transitions do not necessarily reverse established national positions.
A future prime minister may adopt a different communication style, seek improved relations with international partners or introduce adjustments to military policy. However, those changes would not automatically restore political support for proposals that have become increasingly difficult to advance domestically.
The same challenge applies to Israel’s approach towards Iran.
For many years, Netanyahu has presented Iran’s nuclear programme and regional influence as major threats to Israeli security. His government has supported a forceful approach towards limiting Tehran’s strategic capabilities.
According to Kaye’s assessment, opposition to Iran has gained wider acceptance within Israel’s political and security establishment. This suggests that a government led by Netanyahu’s opponents could maintain significant elements of the same security approach.
Why a Change of Government May Not Change Israel’s Direction
Political opposition does not always translate into an alternative national security strategy.
Israel’s opposition includes politicians with different backgrounds, political priorities and views about Netanyahu’s leadership. However, disagreement with the prime minister does not necessarily mean disagreement with his broader positions on military security, Iran or Palestinian statehood.
Kaye highlights this distinction through the observation that some Israeli analysts describe the opposition’s ideological spectrum as “50 shades of right.”
The phrase reflects an argument that much of the opposition may disagree with Netanyahu’s leadership without fundamentally rejecting the national security assumptions that have shaped his government.
This distinction matters when examining the possibility of a post-Netanyahu political era.
A new administration could seek to repair relationships with foreign governments, improve coordination with the United States and reconsider certain domestic political decisions. Nevertheless, it could face considerable difficulty introducing a completely different approach to the Palestinian question or Iran.
Israel’s political parties also operate within a society shaped by years of conflict, security concerns and changing public expectations.
For that reason, the country’s next government would have to consider not only its political promises but also the domestic environment in which those policies would be implemented.
The Palestinian Question and the Declining Space for a Two-State Solution
The future of Palestinian statehood remains one of the most significant issues in the debate over Israel’s long-term security strategy.
The two-state solution, which envisions an independent Palestinian state existing alongside Israel, has historically received international diplomatic support. However, disagreements over territory, security arrangements, settlements, Jerusalem and Palestinian political representation have repeatedly obstructed progress.
Netanyahu’s political approach has contributed to an environment in which the prospect of Palestinian independence has become increasingly difficult to advance within Israeli mainstream politics.
Kaye’s analysis suggests that the challenge may continue even after a leadership transition.
This has implications for diplomatic efforts involving the United States, European governments and Arab countries that have supported a negotiated settlement.
A future Israeli government could face pressure to demonstrate greater flexibility on Palestinian issues. Yet political willingness to negotiate would need to be accompanied by practical decisions concerning territory, security, governance and the status of Palestinian institutions.
The situation in Gaza adds another layer of complexity.
The war following Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel has deeply affected Israeli and Palestinian communities. It has also intensified international scrutiny of Israeli military operations, humanitarian conditions and the future administration of Gaza.
Any future government would inherit these unresolved questions.
The challenge would not simply be deciding whether to continue or modify existing military operations. It would also involve determining what political arrangements could prevent renewed conflict and address the wider Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
Iran Remains Central to Israel’s Security Calculations
Iran has remained a major focus of Israeli national security planning.
Israeli governments have expressed concern about Tehran’s nuclear programme, missile capabilities and relationships with armed groups operating across the Middle East.
Netanyahu has repeatedly argued that Iran represents a strategic threat to Israel. His approach has included diplomatic pressure, intelligence operations and military action intended to limit Iranian capabilities.
Kaye’s analysis indicates that concern about Iran has become deeply established across Israeli political and security institutions.
That development could limit the extent to which a new government changes the country’s approach towards Tehran.
Even leaders who favour different diplomatic arrangements may continue to regard Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities as major security concerns.
The issue also has wider regional implications. Relations between Iran and Israel influence security calculations in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and the Gulf region. Developments involving either country can affect international energy markets, shipping routes and the diplomatic priorities of major global powers.
A future Israeli government would therefore have to consider the regional consequences of its decisions, particularly regarding military escalation and the possibility of diplomatic engagement.
The United States and Israel’s Future Security Relationship
The relationship between Israel and the United States is another important factor in the country’s national security policy.
Washington has historically provided Israel with significant military assistance, diplomatic support and cooperation on defence technology.
However, disagreements over the conduct of military operations, Palestinian statehood and regional diplomacy have periodically created tensions between the two countries.
A change in Israeli leadership could create opportunities for adjustments in diplomatic relations. A government seeking to improve international cooperation might adopt a different approach to communication with Washington and other Western partners.
Nevertheless, the underlying strategic relationship would continue to be shaped by shared security interests, regional developments and domestic political considerations in both countries.
The United States would also have to balance its support for Israel with wider diplomatic objectives, including regional stability and relations with Arab partners.
Kaye’s argument suggests that a change in Israel’s leadership should not automatically be interpreted as a change in the country’s strategic priorities.
For policymakers in Washington, understanding the distinction between political leadership and institutionalised security thinking will be important when developing future diplomatic strategies.
What Netanyahu’s Legacy Could Mean for Israel’s Next Government
Netanyahu’s political legacy may ultimately be measured not only by the decisions he made while in office but also by the policies future governments find difficult to change.
His approach to Palestinian statehood, Iran and military deterrence has helped reshape the boundaries of political debate in Israel.
That does not mean every future administration will follow his policies without modification. Political leadership, changing security conditions and international pressure can all influence national decision-making.
However, Kaye’s analysis raises an important distinction between removing a political leader and reversing the political environment that developed during his leadership.
Israel’s next government could face pressure to address domestic divisions, restore international confidence and establish a clearer long-term strategy for regional security.
Whether those efforts produce a substantial change in policy will depend on the political composition of the government, public opinion, security developments and the willingness of political leaders to reconsider established positions.
For now, the central argument remains that Netanyahu’s influence may extend well beyond his time as prime minister. Even if Israel enters a new political era, the national security framework developed during his leadership could continue to shape its decisions for years.
Netanyahu’s national
