What Israel without Netanyahu could look like

PUBLISHED: June 26, 2026 | www.baltimoresun.com

Just when we think we have reached rock bottom in the Middle East, events have a way of reminding us that history often has another, deeper layer of instability waiting beneath the surface.

The recent deterioration in relations between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu illustrates that reality. What was once one of the closest political relationships between an American president and an Israeli prime minister has become increasingly strained over the wars involving Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The disagreements have moved well beyond private diplomacy into public confrontation.

According to reports, Trump has grown increasingly frustrated with Netanyahu’s handling of the conflict, particularly Israel’s military operations in Lebanon. Trump has publicly criticized Israeli strikes that resulted in significant civilian destruction while targeting individual Hezbollah operatives, arguing that such actions unnecessarily undermine broader diplomatic objectives. He has repeatedly emphasized that Israel’s continued military campaigns complicate efforts to secure a lasting regional settlement and jeopardize opportunities for expanding peace throughout the Middle East.

Reports have described tense conversations between the two leaders, including Trump’s decision to halt planned Israeli military operations and his insistence that Netanyahu exercise greater restraint. Whether every reported quotation proves entirely accurate is ultimately less important than the unmistakable reality: The political partnership between Washington and Jerusalem is under greater stress than it has been in years.

That deterioration matters because the debate should not simply focus on whether Netanyahu has made mistakes. Every wartime leader does. The far more consequential question is who would likely replace him.

Netanyahu’s political future remains uncertain. He continues defending himself against criminal charges involving bribery, fraud and breach of trust while simultaneously leading a nation engaged on multiple military fronts. Israel’s next parliamentary elections must occur no later than October, although legislation could move the timetable forward. Polls continue to show a deeply divided electorate, with no guarantee that Netanyahu will emerge politically strengthened.

Many outside observers assume Netanyahu represents the hardest line in Israeli politics. In reality, many influential members of Israel’s governing coalition consider him too cautious.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has repeatedly criticized Netanyahu for what he views as excessive restraint in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran. Ben-Gvir has advocated a full Israeli military reoccupation of Gaza, dramatically expanding Israeli settlements and encouraging the mass emigration of Palestinians from Gaza and portions of the West Bank. He has also called for significantly tougher measures against activists attempting to deliver humanitarian aid into Gaza outside Israeli-approved channels.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has similarly argued for permanently extending Israeli sovereignty over much or all of the West Bank while rejecting the framework established by the Oslo peace process. His long-term vision moves well beyond managing the conflict toward fundamentally redrawing Israel’s relationship with the disputed territories.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with those positions, they demonstrate that Netanyahu occupies a political environment where significant pressure comes not from the center or the left, but from politicians demanding far more aggressive military and territorial policies.

History offers an important lesson. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the Oslo Accords, was assassinated in 1995 by a Jewish extremist who believed Rabin had betrayed Israel by seeking compromise with the Palestinians. That tragedy underscored the intensity of Israel’s internal political divisions and the risks leaders face whenever they pursue or are perceived to pursue moderation.

This context is often missing from American political discussions. Many Americans evaluate Netanyahu against previous Israeli prime ministers. Israeli politics increasingly evaluates him against a rising generation of nationalist and religious parties that seek policies considerably more confrontational than his own.

If Netanyahu were replaced by leaders who favor broader annexation, expanded military campaigns and rejection of future negotiations, the consequences could extend well beyond Israel.

The Abraham Accords, which remain one of the most significant diplomatic achievements in the region in recent decades, could face renewed strain. Arab governments that have cautiously normalized relations with Israel would come under increasing domestic pressure. Regional cooperation on trade, security and intelligence could weaken. Iran would almost certainly attempt to exploit any widening divisions among America’s regional partners.

The broader strategic implications would also affect the United States. America’s military presence throughout the Persian Gulf depends upon long-standing partnerships with nations such as Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While those relationships are built upon shared security interests, they also require careful diplomatic balance as regional tensions evolve. A prolonged escalation could complicate those partnerships while creating opportunities for China and Russia to expand their influence throughout the Middle East.

Energy markets would likewise become increasingly vulnerable. Even absent a formal oil embargo reminiscent of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, sustained regional instability can disrupt energy supplies, increase shipping costs and place upward pressure on gasoline prices and inflation across the global economy.

None of this is intended as a defense of every decision Netanyahu has made. Democracies should always scrutinize the actions of their elected leaders, particularly during wartime. Israel, like every democracy, must continue wrestling with difficult questions about military strategy, civilian casualties, humanitarian obligations and long-term security.

But strategic analysis requires comparing realistic alternatives rather than hypothetical ideals.

Leadership transitions during periods of war rarely produce immediate moderation. More often, they create political openings for voices that argue previous leaders were insufficiently aggressive. That pattern has repeated itself throughout history in many nations.

Americans, therefore, should ask not only whether Netanyahu has made mistakes, but whether the likely alternatives would make the region more stable or considerably more dangerous.

Sometimes the choice in international affairs is not between good and bad. It is between imperfect and potentially far worse. Before celebrating Netanyahu’s possible political demise, policymakers in Washington should carefully consider what could come next.

Armstrong Williams (www.armstrongwilliams.com; @arightside) is a political analyst, syndicated columnist and owner of the broadcasting company, Howard Stirk Holdings. He is also part owner of The Baltimore Sun.

©️ 2026 Baltimore Sun