Can a transitional government start a war with Iran? - explainer

President Isaac Herzog has appointed Gadi Eisenkot as Israel's next prime minister, though Benjamin Netanyahu retains the title of prime minister and maintains control over the defense sector and foreign policy, especially concerning Iran. This unique political scenario following the recent elections prompts questions not only about government formation but also about who has the authority to make critical decisions, such as renewing Israel's military campaign against Iran, which could potentially ignite a broader regional conflict.

Although Netanyahu's role as caretaker prime minister may seem to restrict his capacity to make significant decisions, a closer look at Israel's Basic Law: The Government, coupled with historical precedents, suggests a more intricate picture. A caretaker government is not explicitly prohibited from engaging in warfare. Past caretaker governments have overseen major military operations, prompting the central inquiries: under what circumstances would this action be justified, how should the decision be made, and is postponement impossible due to an urgent security threat?

This matter has gained particular importance amidst a growing rift between Israel and the United States. U.S. President Donald Trump, who previously endorsed aggressive military actions against Iran, has recently expressed no inclination to resume strikes, preferring a possible nuclear agreement with Tehran. Meanwhile, Netanyahu maintains that the only way to permanently neutralize the Iranian threat is to overthrow the ayatollah's regime.

In a recent CBS interview, Trump clarified his stance on escalating the war with Iran, asserting he saw no reason to do so at this stage. He noted that Iran was engaged in talks with the U.S. and hoped for a mutually beneficial agreement. However, he reiterated that the U.S. military would remain ready to act if circumstances changed.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed this sentiment, arguing that the economic pressure Washington is exerting on Iran through sanctions and naval blockades has been effective and damaging enough to render military strikes unnecessary for now. Yet, Rubio acknowledged that a breakthrough in negotiations was not imminent, partly due to Iranian demands that Washington finds unacceptable. Consequently, the military option remains an option.

Vice President JD Vance has emerged as a key player in efforts to secure a diplomatic agreement. Over the past two weeks, Vance has been in frequent communication with the Qatari prime minister, Pakistan's army chief, and other mediators. The administration is also exploring direct talks between U.S. and Iranian officials at a working level, as well as a potential meeting between Vance and senior Iranian officials.

These discussions contrast with Netanyahu's preference for a more aggressive approach. In his recent Knesset address, Netanyahu advocated for forming a national unity government in response to the renewed Iranian threat, arguing that overthrowing the ayatollah's regime is the only way to permanently eliminate the Iranian threat.

He also warned that the international community might come to accept a resumption of Iran's nuclear program.

The Financial Times reported that Arab leaders are concerned that Netanyahu is pressuring Trump to resume the military campaign. However, a source familiar with the Israeli situation suggested that while Netanyahu favors renewed military action, there is currently little evidence of a concerted effort to persuade Trump to pursue it. These conflicting reports shed light on the disagreements over the best way to resolve the conflict with Iran but do not confirm Netanyahu's decision to launch another offensive.