Israel’s Caretaker Government Faces Questions Over Who Can Authorize War With Iran

Israel's uncertain transition of power has become entwined with fears of another escalation against Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu remains prime minister in a caretaker capacity while opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot attempts to form a governing coalition after the election. Reports that the defence establishment has been asked to increase readiness for a possible operation have sharpened a legal question: does a caretaker prime minister have the same authority to initiate major military action as one backed by a parliamentary majority? The answer is more complicated than either a complete ban or an unrestricted personal power to declare war.

Under Israel's Basic Law: The Government, Section 40 governs decisions to initiate war or undertake a major military operation likely to lead to war. The provision requires a government decision, although the law permits specified delegation and separate action needed for immediate defence. The Jerusalem Post's November 12 explanation emphasizes the distinction between the prime minister's continuing executive role and the collective approval required for a new war. The existence of heightened military readiness does not establish that a decision to launch an attack has been made.

Reuters reported earlier that caretaker governments retain the formal powers of ordinary governments but must exercise restraint, especially in appointments and decisions that could bind an incoming administration. National-security emergencies may justify action that would otherwise be deferred. Israel's courts have historically been reluctant to interfere directly in military decisions, but that judicial restraint should not be confused with the absence of legal procedures. The relevant scrutiny concerns who assessed the threat, what was authorized and whether the situation was immediate enough to justify action.

Israeli media reported preparations for a possible strike against Iran while Eisenkot warned against launching military operations without a direct and immediate threat before a new government takes office. The new Knesset has convened, and its political balance differs from the outgoing coalition's. Eisenkot has been given the opportunity to form a government, but that process may take weeks. During the gap, command structures must continue to function. The greater the strategic consequence of any decision, the stronger the case for clear collective authorization and an accountable record of the legal basis.

International signals are adding uncertainty. President Donald Trump (opens in a new tab) said on November 12 that Washington did not need a new deal with Iran, according to Reuters. His remarks came as reports circulated about possible diplomatic contacts, the details of which were not independently confirmed. Trump's position is relevant to Israeli calculations but does not substitute for an Israeli cabinet decision. Nor does rhetoric establish that the US has agreed to participate in a new strike. Public descriptions of negotiation, military preparation and operational intent need to be kept separate.

The economic stakes extend far beyond Israeli politics. Renewed attacks and retaliation could affect shipping risk in the Gulf, insurance costs, fuel prices and military readiness across several countries. The global oil market balance (opens in a new tab) is particularly sensitive to perceived threats around the Strait of Hormuz. Energy-importing households and businesses would pay through higher transport and production costs if disruption became persistent. Defence contractors and some producers could benefit from increased demand or prices, but those gains would accompany significant civilian and security risks.

The immediate beneficiaries of restraint would be civilians, commercial shipping and governments seeking diplomatic options. Those advocating immediate action argue that waiting can allow threats to grow; the strength of that claim depends on intelligence not available publicly. Israel's constitutional challenge is to preserve urgent self-defence while preventing a departing administration from bypassing the collective process required for war. The indicators to watch are the security cabinet's announced meetings, any legally documented authorization, actual military movements and independent evidence of hostilities. Until then, reports of readiness should not be reported as a confirmed decision to attack.

Netanyahu's caretaker status does not mean the armed forces are leaderless, but neither does it eliminate Section 40 or political accountability. Any major escalation would be judged against both the immediate threat and the legal path through which officials approved it. The credibility of that process matters to the next government as well as to the public now. The transition remains unresolved, and the costs of miscalculation would not wait for coalition negotiations to finish.

Sources

• Reuters — Caretaker role could limit Netanyahu but not rule out war (opens in a new tab)
• Reuters — Trump says US does not need Iran deal (opens in a new tab)
• Jerusalem Post — Can Netanyahu legally attack Iran? (opens in a new tab)
• Associated Press — New Israeli Knesset convenes (opens in a new tab)
• Times of Israel — Government without majority (opens in a new tab)
• Al Jazeera — Iran warns of retaliation (opens in a new tab)