Dubai: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly pushed for a fresh military attack on Iran in the weeks leading up to Tuesday's closely contested election, but faced resistance from senior military commanders who questioned the urgency and political sensitivity of such an operation, according to a New York Times investigation.
The revelations have intensified a political controversy over whether Israel risked being drawn into another confrontation with Iran just as Netanyahu battles to remain in power.
The New York Times, citing three senior Israeli defence officials and three other people briefed on the deliberations, reported that Netanyahu had sought to orchestrate a new airstrike on Iran for weeks, only to encounter objections from military chief Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir.
The report comes despite categorical denials from Netanyahu's government. Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Monday that claims of differences between political leaders and the military over Iran were "entirely baseless and false", insisting there was complete coordination between the two.
Katz also stated unequivocally that Israel had no intention of initiating an attack on Iran before the election.
The competing accounts have placed Israel's military decision-making under scrutiny at a critical moment for both the country's political future and regional security.
Military chief questioned urgency
According to the New York Times, Zamir opposed launching an attack before the election, arguing that there was no immediate or urgent military requirement for such action.
The military chief and air force commander Major General Omer Tischler reportedly raised concerns about the political sensitivities surrounding the timing and the difficulty of explaining to the Israeli public why an operation had to take place before voting.
The newspaper said Zamir was not opposed to military action against Iran in principle but objected to the proposed timing.
In recent days, Zamir also became concerned that Netanyahu was pressing for a separate operation against Iran that would fall short of an overt strike, according to an Israeli official and another person briefed on the matter.
The nature of that proposed action was not disclosed.
Zamir reportedly feared that such a move could provoke an Iranian response and trigger a wider confrontation.
Israel's military said its operational decisions were based strictly on security considerations and its responsibilities as a national institution.
The New York Times said Netanyahu's reasons for pressing for action before the election remained unclear.
Government denies any rift
The controversy first erupted after Israel's Channel 12 reported on Sunday that Netanyahu and Zamir had clashed over an unspecified directive concerning Iran.
According to the television report, Zamir demanded detailed discussions, legal guarantees and signatures from political leaders before implementing the directive.
The report also cited concerns within the military that the conflict with Iran could be exploited for political purposes.
Netanyahu dismissed the allegations as "rubbish", while Katz accused those spreading the claims of attempting to undermine confidence in the government's judgement ahead of the election.
Katz maintained that political and military leaders were fully coordinated on Iran.
The New York Times subsequently published its more detailed account of the reported discussions, citing officials and people familiar with the deliberations who spoke anonymously because they were not authorised to discuss them publicly.
Netanyahu's spokesmen did not immediately respond to the newspaper's requests for comment.
Could another Iran war change Israel's political future?
Beyond the immediate controversy, the New York Times raised a potentially significant question: What would happen if fighting with Iran resumed after the election?
The newspaper reported that renewed hostilities could complicate efforts by Netanyahu's opponents to form a governing coalition, even if they performed strongly at the polls.
A fresh conflict could also create political pressure for a national unity government that included Netanyahu.
Such outcomes remain possibilities rather than established plans or inevitable consequences.
Israel's parliamentary system requires a governing coalition capable of commanding sufficient support in the 120-seat Knesset.
Opinion polls suggest neither Netanyahu's right-wing bloc nor the opposition led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot is assured of the 61 seats needed for a majority.
Coalition negotiations could therefore become decisive in determining who governs Israel after Tuesday's vote.
The New York Times noted that a return to fighting could disrupt those negotiations or make it harder for opposition parties to assemble a government within the legally prescribed period.
Opposition demands investigation
The reports have triggered fierce criticism from Netanyahu's political rivals.
Former defence minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Monday that he had asked Israel's attorney general to investigate whether the prime minister had attempted to draw the country into a confrontation with Iran for political reasons.
Lieberman accused Netanyahu of pressuring security officials to take steps that could lead to a dangerous miscalculation.
He described any attempt to provoke war out of fear of electoral defeat as a betrayal of the country.
Opposition leader Yair Lapid also attacked Netanyahu, saying the prime minister had lost his grip on events.
Left-wing leader Yair Golan described him as a threat to Israel's security.
Eisenkot, Netanyahu's principal challenger, expressed confidence in Zamir and warned against turning the military into an instrument of political survival.
The allegations have not been established by an official investigation, and Netanyahu's government rejects the reported divisions.
Netanyahu warns of Iranian threat
Throughout the election campaign, Netanyahu has portrayed himself as the leader best equipped to confront Iran and its regional allies.
He has repeatedly argued that Israel must complete its military objectives against Tehran and warned that an opposition victory could undermine national security.
On Sunday, he posted an AI-generated image depicting a nuclear mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, reinforcing his warnings about what he described as an existential Iranian threat.
He also warned that Iran and its proxies might attempt attacks intended to disrupt the election.
Iran's foreign ministry dismissed the significance of the vote, saying it made no difference which Israeli leader emerged victorious.
US President Donald Trump, meanwhile, renewed his endorsement of Netanyahu on Sunday, describing him as an outstanding wartime prime minister.
What happens next?
As Israelis cast their ballots, the dispute over the reported Iran strike proposal has added another dimension to an election already shaped by war, security failures and political divisions.
The immediate question is whether Netanyahu's security credentials will help him retain power or whether the controversy will strengthen demands for a change of leadership.
The wider regional concern is whether Israel's political uncertainty could coincide with renewed military escalation involving Iran.
For now, the reported proposals, military objections and government denials remain competing accounts of deliberations whose full details have not been made public.
-- With inputs from AFP