Arafat Chose to Fight for 6 Months... Moscow’s Position Was his Greatest Disappointment 

Asharq Al-Awsat publishes recollections of influential players during 1982 Israeli invasion of Beirut. 

Smoke billows from strikes during the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. (Getty Images)
Smoke billows from strikes during the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. (Getty Images)
TT

Arafat Chose to Fight for 6 Months... Moscow’s Position Was his Greatest Disappointment 

Smoke billows from strikes during the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. (Getty Images)
Smoke billows from strikes during the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. (Getty Images)

On this day in 1982, Beirut was besieged by the Israeli army and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat boarded a ship that took him to his new exile in Tunisia. The Palestinian Liberation Organization’s loss of its last front with Israel would leave its mark on the Palestinians and Lebanon.

As Israel tightened its siege of Beirut, Arafat took a secret decision to carry on fighting for six months until regional and international stances emerged. He was forced to leave Lebanon after 88 days, marking an end of what he described as the “longest Arab-Israeli war.”

The greatest disappointment to the Palestinian resistance and its allies in the Lebanese National Movement came from their Soviet ally. Moscow had refused to deliver a serious warning or send a destroyer off the Lebanese coast or a ship to evacuate the wounded.

Arafat’s insistence that he leave Lebanon by sea, not through Damascus, reflected the extent of the differences between him and Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. Secretary General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) Ahmed Jibril recalled that Arafat had bluntly told him that the Syrian leadership will not be credited for him holding out for three months in Beirut.

Asharq Al-Awsat will publish a series of features highlighting the significant developments and recollections of influential players during that heated summer of 1982.

From a building in east Beirut, Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon observed Arafat as he boarded the ship that would take him to Tunisia. He wrongly believed that had broken the Palestinian resistance and that it would fade away in exile. The invasion failed in luring Lebanon to strike a peace deal with Israel. The current Lebanon has an even more hardline position towards Israel.

Against the backdrop of the war, Syria and Iran will lay the foundation of their alliance. Hezbollah would be born in Lebanon. Syria, which had withdrawn its troops from Beirut in wake of the invasion, would redeploy them years later, before again being forced to pull them out in 2005 after the assassination of Lebanese former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

In the besieged city, I was determined to record the testimonials of influential political and security figures. I tried to obtain Arafat’s testimony, but he turned down the offer, saying he didn’t want the Palestinian people to be punished “because of his memories.”

In Tunisia, Arafat told me: “What do you want me to recount? To tell you about Sabri al-Banna (Abou Nidal), who was hosted by three Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus and Tripoli, and who was obsessed with assassinating Palestinians, not Israelis?”

“Do you want me to tell you about the so-called intifada in Fatah that was backed by Syria and funded by Libya? Or do you want me to complain about the practices of Palestinian groups that tarnished our image of resistance or led to our labeling as terrorists? I’m not saying that Fatah was faultless. We all made mistakes, but we always tried not to lose our way and lose our cause.”

“The Palestinian people have been punished a lot. They were punished for clinging on to their cause and for firing the first shot. (...) The PLO was punished for adopting a hard line and punished when it adopted a moderate approach. Do you want the Palestinian people to be punished because of my memoirs? I don’t want to open old wounds.”

“As I was leaving Beirut, a journalist asked me: ‘Where to?’ I replied: ‘To Jerusalem. We are preparing for our date in Palestine and Jerusalem. We don’t have any other place to be.’”

The KGB general and Iran

In 1980, Palestinian ambassador to Tehran and Fatah central committee member Hani al-Hassan received an urgent call to head to Beirut. Upon his arrival, Arafat told him they were headed to a meeting at the Soviet embassy. Hassan understood that he needed to voice Arafat’s views. He knew how influential the Soviets were in the Palestinian revolution. He knew of the consequences of refusing delicate Soviet proposals.

Other Fatah members at the meeting included Salah Khalaf (Abou Ayad) and Khalil al-Wazir (Abou Jihad). The Soviets were represented by General “Alexander” who was the KGB official overseeing operations in the Middle East. The insistence that Palestinian leaders, not their representatives, be present at the meeting meant that Moscow expected the talks to yield a decision.

General “Alexander” spoke about the situation in the region, especially Iran, in wake of the Soviet military invasion of Afghanistan. He said the time had come for the Palestinians to cooperate with the Soviets to facilitate the Communist Party’s control of Iran. The Soviet Union wanted to expand its power in the region and Iran was a significant prize given its geographic location and resources.

Hassan was surprised with the proposal and asked to be excused from the meeting, but Arafat refused. Hassan said he would not stand against the Iranian revolution that had “offered us several major services,” referring to its severing of Iranian-Israeli relations that were forged under the shah.

Tensions soon erupted and the Soviet general declared that the Palestinians “won’t be able to do anything without us.” Hassan replied: “If the Soviets enter Iran, then Israel’s strategic value will grow a million-fold to the West. So, don’t even think about it. For our part, we will ensure that every effort is made to form good Iranian-Soviet relations.”

Hassan believed that the meeting exposed how the Soviets dealt with the situations in Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan and future conflicts in these countries.

Meeting in a Soviet forest

Another significant meeting was held years earlier. In the early 1970s, head of the PFLP’s External Operations Wadie Haddad met with KGB chief Yuri Andropov in a forest on the outskirts of Moscow. The meeting was held in utmost secrecy because Haddad at the time had been planning plane hijacking operations for years. Haddad asked for weapons from the Soviets, and they were smuggled to him off the coast of Aden, Yemen.

The first high-level contacts between Moscow and the Palestinian revolution took place in 1968 at the suggestion of Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nasser and Arafat traveled to Moscow together on a secret visit. Two years later, a Soviet envoy met with Arafat in Jordan and the relations between the Palestinians and Soviets came out to the open.

Moscow realized the importance of relations with the Palestinians so it forged ties that allowed it in a few years to wield influence in Palestinian political and security decisions. Moscow formed close ties with the Palestinian left, including the PFLP, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and leftists in the Fatah movement.

These relations led the Palestinian resistance and allied parties in Lebanon to rule out the possibility of Israel invading Beirut. It had already launched its invasion on June 6, 1982, and was advancing on the capital. On the day of the invasion, the Fatah and Lebanese National Movement met in Beirut. Present were Abou Ammar, Abou Jihad, Abou Ayad, Abou al-Walid, Secretary General of the Lebanese Communist Party George Hawi and Secretary General of the Communist Action Organization in Lebanon Mohsen Ibrahim.

They discussed the possibility that the invasion could go beyond southern Lebanon, especially with Sharon as defense minister. They never predicted, however, that the Israeli forces would advance on Beirut and reach its outskirts because Syrian troops were in the capital and any clash with the Israelis could lead to a full-scale war between them. They believed that Israel would not provoke Syria, an ally of Moscow.

They were proven wrong when the Israeli army was met with little resistance and eventually besieged Beirut. It was later revealed that the Soviets and their allies did not have information about the Israeli plans. The Syrians were also in the dark.

Meeting with Bashir Gemayel

When the Israeli forces reached the Chouf area in Mount Lebanon and appeared intent on Beirut, a secret meeting was held between Abou Ammar al-Hassan, head of the Lebanese Forces Bashir al-Gemayel and Lebanese military intelligence chief Johnny Abdo. Gemayel wanted to hold the meeting to deliver a message to Arafat that the Palestinians must lay down their arms and leave Lebanon. “I am ready to secure a safe and dignified exit. I want an immediate answer before the Israelis reach Beirut,” he said. Hassan suggested that they take their conversation to the balcony because they feared Abdo’s house would be wiretapped.

Hassan noticed how worried Gemayel appeared. He told him: “Let me speak to you frankly. I follow you and it is my duty to follow you. I know you have presidential ambitions, but you won’t achieve them this way. You were the one who paved the way for the Syrians so that they could strike the Palestinians. Now, you have brought in the Israelis so that they can strike them both.”

“At the end of this game, we will both be struck, and you will be finished. Lebanon is enticing. Neither the Israelis, nor the Syrians will pull out. You are opposed to both of them. Let me repeat, you are mistaken in thinking this is the way that will lead you to the presidency. Your odds will be better if you decide to side with us and the Lebanese National Movement.”

“Who will agree to hosting the Palestinian fighters? Jordan, Syria or others? He vowed that he will ensure that a small number of fighters would remain and they would answer to the Lebanese army. The game slipped from his hands when the Israelis reached Beirut.”

Hassan later informed Mohsen about the meeting. Mohsen then met with Arafat and Hawi. They were primarily concerned with determining whether Moscow could stop the invasion. Hawi, with his close ties to the Soviets, believed that striking the Palestinian revolution was a red line for both sides the Soviets and Communists. After a month or so, he realized that everything was permissible, and nothing was off limits. Arab countries had no way of influencing international powers.

Hawi was hoping Moscow would threaten Israel to withdraw from Lebanon. He hoped they would send a naval vessel off the coast of Beirut or at least evacuate the wounded. Soviet ambassador to Beirut Alexander Soldatov could promise nothing of the sort. Hawi kept relaying these disappointing stances to Arafat. Hawi and others could not believe that the Soviets would stand idly by as Israel invaded Lebanon.

Arafat was dealt a crushing blow during a meeting with Soldatov. The ambassador told Arafat to leave Beirut, even if he had to board an American destroyer. Arafat was incredulous and refused to leave. He would eventually relent when it appeared that the Soviets would not support him or stand against the Israelis.



Iran's Postponed War: Who Holds the Power to Ignite It?

A US F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jet refuels from a KC-135 tanker aircraft during an aerial patrol over the Middle East (CENTCOM)
A US F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jet refuels from a KC-135 tanker aircraft during an aerial patrol over the Middle East (CENTCOM)
TT

Iran's Postponed War: Who Holds the Power to Ignite It?

A US F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jet refuels from a KC-135 tanker aircraft during an aerial patrol over the Middle East (CENTCOM)
A US F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jet refuels from a KC-135 tanker aircraft during an aerial patrol over the Middle East (CENTCOM)

With Israel preparing for possible military strikes against Iran, and Washington showing restraint ahead of the US midterm elections, questions are mounting over whether the region is experiencing a temporary pause dictated by electoral calculations or a final opportunity for a political settlement.

While one strategic affairs expert expects a major confrontation by the end of November, two others downplay the influence of election results on decisions by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, arguing that strategic considerations will ultimately prove decisive.

The question in Washington and Tel Aviv is no longer simply whether war with Iran will resume, but when, on what scale and with what objectives.

Reports that Israel prepared a large-scale bombing campaign against Iranian targets before postponing it following Trump's objections have revived a sensitive question: Is the war awaiting the conclusion of the US and Israeli elections, or does its postponement reflect deeper disagreements over the merits of escalation?

These questions are gaining urgency as elections approach in both countries. Assessments by three American experts reveal differing expectations about military developments and political calculations, but converge on one central point: Election results alone will not determine the outcome of the confrontation.

US President Donald Trump greets Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he arrives at the West Wing of the White House in Washington, DC on September 29, 2025. (Photo by Jim WATSON / AFP)

A War Awaiting Its Moment

The Financial Times reported Wednesday that Netanyahu had instructed the Israeli military to prepare a large-scale bombing campaign against Iran, initially scheduled for October 10, before the operation was canceled after Trump objected to resuming military action ahead of the US elections.

According to the newspaper, the plan included strikes on nuclear facilities, civilian infrastructure and sites associated with the Iranian regime.

Israeli officials also presented US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth with a list of targets based on new intelligence during his unannounced visit to Israel on Monday.

Axios had previously reported that the Pentagon requested the completion of preparations for extensive military operations without setting a date for their execution.

The outlet cited officials as saying that Hegseth and US military commanders in the region were pushing for renewed strikes, while most of Trump's advisers favored continuing sanctions and economic pressure.

These developments suggest that the disagreement concerns the timing and necessity of military force more than the ultimate objectives.

Washington wants to secure Iranian concessions on Tehran's nuclear program and the Strait of Hormuz, while Israel fears that continued negotiations could allow Iran to rebuild its military capabilities.

Scenarios for Escalation

Offering a more pessimistic assessment, Farzin Nadimi, an expert on Iranian military and security affairs at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told Asharq Al-Awsat that all indicators point toward a major military confrontation involving the United States, Israel and Iran, and potentially other regional countries, by the end of November.

Nadimi did not rule out the possibility that intensive diplomatic efforts could prevent escalation, but considered the chances of success extremely slim.

He outlined a scenario beginning with a renewed wave of strikes targeting senior leaders and command-and-control centers, followed by attacks on nuclear and missile facilities and air defense systems, eventually escalating into a comprehensive bombing campaign against Iranian military and security installations.

Whether the campaign would expand to infrastructure, oil and gas facilities, and petrochemical plants would depend on the nature of Iran's response, he said.

Nadimi warned that Tehran might make a more determined effort this time to sink US warships and shoot down manned aircraft, while also deploying longer-range, medium-range ballistic missiles.

He raised an even more dangerous possibility: a ground incursion into Kuwait or Saudi Arabia from Iraq, carried out by Shiite factions linked to the Popular Mobilization Forces.

This remains a hypothetical scenario proposed by the researcher, rather than confirmed evidence of an Iranian plan to carry out such an operation.

At the same time, Nadimi ruled out a US ground invasion of Iran, suggesting that the next confrontation would more closely resemble the previous 39-day war.

Washington's Calculations

Brian Katulis, a foreign policy and regional affairs expert at the Middle East Institute, downplayed the significance of election results in determining the course of the war.

He told Asharq Al-Awsat that the US midterm elections were unlikely to substantially affect decisions by the Trump administration or Israel regarding Iran, because the threats posed by Tehran would remain the primary factor shaping their next steps.

Katulis noted that Trump is experiencing his weakest political position across his two presidential terms, amid declining approval ratings and the possibility that Republicans could lose seats in Congress.

In his view, however, that does not mean the election results will constrain the president's ability to take military action, given the executive branch's broad national security powers relative to those of Congress.

Katulis identified two more consequential factors in the administration's calculations.

The first is a shortage of certain types of ammunition and military equipment following the previous phase of the war, which has left US forces more exposed in the region and elsewhere. The second is the economic cost of another confrontation.

These concerns are particularly significant amid continuing tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz and global energy markets, as renewed operations against Iranian facilities could cause further disruptions to oil supplies.

As for Israel, Katulis argued that disagreements among political leaders tend to diminish when the perceived Iranian threat is at issue.

Beyond the Ballot Box

Michael Rubin, director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum, went further, dismissing the possibility that the elections would fundamentally change the political dynamics governing decisions about war.

He told Asharq Al-Awsat that Trump would remain the ultimate decision-maker regardless of developments in Congress.

Indeed, Rubin suggested that Trump might feel greater freedom to make military decisions after the elections, given that he would not face another presidential election.

In Israel, Rubin argued that widespread opposition to Netanyahu does not necessarily translate into comparable divisions over Iran.

In his assessment, there is broad agreement among Israeli candidates on both the right and left regarding the nature of the threats posed by Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Rubin also pointed to a striking possibility: Another Israeli prime minister might be able to act more effectively than Netanyahu because some objections from members of Congress, diplomats and foreign ministers are directed more at Netanyahu personally than at Israel itself.

Consequently, Netanyahu's electoral defeat would not necessarily reduce the likelihood of confrontation, just as Republican losses in Congress would not automatically give lawmakers the power to prevent Trump from resuming military operations.

Ultimately, the elections appear more likely to influence the timing of a confrontation than to determine its objectives.

Trump's decision to postpone military action does not mean the military option has been abandoned, just as Israel's preparations do not mean that a final decision to go to war has been made.

Negotiations remain the alternative path, despite continuing disagreements over nuclear concessions and the conditions for ending the war.

The conclusion of the elections could remove one reason for postponement, but it would not eliminate the military, economic and political obstacles.

The central question remains whether Washington will use its military preparations to secure a negotiated settlement or view the failure of diplomacy as justification for resuming the war.

In either case, Trump's decision, rather than election results alone, will be the most influential factor in determining the direction of the crisis.


What's Holding Up Washington's $14 bn Arms Sale to Taiwan?

Washington -- Taipei's most important security backer -- has held off on an arms sale package worth $14 billion. I-Hwa Cheng / AFP/File
Washington -- Taipei's most important security backer -- has held off on an arms sale package worth $14 billion. I-Hwa Cheng / AFP/File
TT

What's Holding Up Washington's $14 bn Arms Sale to Taiwan?

Washington -- Taipei's most important security backer -- has held off on an arms sale package worth $14 billion. I-Hwa Cheng / AFP/File
Washington -- Taipei's most important security backer -- has held off on an arms sale package worth $14 billion. I-Hwa Cheng / AFP/File

Taiwan has been waiting months for US President Donald Trump to approve a $14 billion sale of weapons and equipment, which the island democracy would use to fend off a potential Chinese attack.

Washington -- Taipei's most important security backer -- has sold many billions of dollars' worth of arms to Taiwan, most recently in December when it approved a record $11.1 billion package, said AFP.

China opposes American military support for Taiwan, which Beijing claims is part of its territory and has threatened to seize with force.

Trump, who last month hailed his "great friendship" with Chinese President Xi Jinping, has resisted US political pressure, including from Republican lawmakers, to give the green light for the current arms package.

AFP takes a look at what's in it and why it's being held up:

- Why is Taiwan buying US arms? -

Taiwan is spending huge sums upgrading its defense capabilities and expanding its domestic weapons production capacity, but it still needs US arms to deter China.

Since Washington switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, the United States has stuck to its commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act to provide weapons to Taiwan for its defense.

But Trump said in May that US arms sales to Taiwan could be a bargaining chip with China, setting off alarm bells across the world.

Taipei has reminded Trump of US commitments, and US officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio have insisted American policy on Taiwan has not changed.

The sale would signal US support for Taiwan and send a message to Beijing that if it launched an attack, it would not face "Taiwan alone", said Wang Ting-yu, a senior lawmaker in President Lai Ching-te's Democratic Progressive Party.

- What's in the package? -

Taiwan is developing a multi-layered air defense system, known as the T-Dome, that it hopes could counter a potential Chinese attack.

Patriot missiles, an automated command and control system and a 360-degree air defense radar system are seen as critical components of this system and are among the items in the $14 billion package.

"Together these systems can strengthen the resilience of Taiwan's strategic air defenses," said Su Tzu-yun, a military expert at the Taipei-based Institute for National Defense and Security Research.

Money for the weapons system is expected to come from a $25 billion defense spending bill passed by Taiwan's parliament in May after months of political wrangling.

- Why has it been delayed? -

Trump and Xi met in Beijing in May -- the first of four expected meetings for 2026 -- as the rival leaders sought to ease trade tensions between their countries.

Xi issued a blunt warning to Trump that missteps on Taiwan could push the US and China into "conflict".

A record $14 billion arms sale to Taiwan could threaten the US-China trade truce.

"I'm going to make a determination. I'm going to see," Trump said after the summit in response to a question about whether he would go ahead with arms sales to Taiwan.

Rubio said in June that the proposed package was "under review", while officials said in May they were assessing whether American weapons stockpiles were sufficient for its Iran operations.

A US official said recently that the chances of the package being split into smaller chunks "have gone way up".

Some Taiwanese officials have said they do not care if the US bundles the arms into a single package or multiple -- they just want the weapons.

"Militarily... Taiwan is racing against time," said the analyst Su.

"Acquiring weapons is not like ordering at a drive-through. Production, delivery and training all take time before the systems can enter service and become effective."


Israel's Election May Change Its Leader, But Not Iran War Policy

21 October 2026, Israel, Mitzpe Ramon: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivers an address during the Israeli army officer course graduation ceremony at the Bahad 1 Officers School. Photo: Kobi Gideon/Israel Gpo via ZUMA Press Wire/dpa
21 October 2026, Israel, Mitzpe Ramon: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivers an address during the Israeli army officer course graduation ceremony at the Bahad 1 Officers School. Photo: Kobi Gideon/Israel Gpo via ZUMA Press Wire/dpa
TT

Israel's Election May Change Its Leader, But Not Iran War Policy

21 October 2026, Israel, Mitzpe Ramon: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivers an address during the Israeli army officer course graduation ceremony at the Bahad 1 Officers School. Photo: Kobi Gideon/Israel Gpo via ZUMA Press Wire/dpa
21 October 2026, Israel, Mitzpe Ramon: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivers an address during the Israeli army officer course graduation ceremony at the Bahad 1 Officers School. Photo: Kobi Gideon/Israel Gpo via ZUMA Press Wire/dpa

Israel's election next week may change its leader, but not its strategy: Iran will remain its chief adversary, military force will continue to be its preferred tool and Palestinian statehood a distant prospect, regional policymakers and analysts say.

That is because the strategic assumptions underpinning Israeli policy were hardened by the October 7, 2023, attacks on southern Israeli communities by Palestinian group Hamas and by the wars in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran.

If anything, Israel could toughen its security policy, the analysts said, as victory for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the backing of far-right coalition partners could embolden him to step up the war with Iran, tighten Israel's grip on the occupied West Bank and push diplomacy further to the margins.

Israel's security doctrine now rests on three pillars: breaking Iran, holding buffer zones beyond its borders and using force to deter enemies.

The real divide is one of degree rather than direction — how aggressively Israel fights its wars, how far it expands Jewish settlements in the West Bank and whether any leader opts for diplomacy, the analysts said.

From Tehran to Riyadh, Tuesday's election is not seen as a potential turning point but as a test of whether the Middle East is settling into a long confrontation, where wars ‌ebb and flow while ‌the underlying conflicts are unresolved.

"If Netanyahu is elected, he'll do whatever he thinks he wants to do," said Aviv ‌Bushinsky, a ⁠former adviser to Netanyahu. "Expansion ⁠of the settlements will continue. The wars against Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah will continue."

"What you see now is what you'll see after the election, maybe even more aggressively," he said. "As long as Iran is in such a situation, it's a waste of time talking about Palestine.”

Netanyahu said on Sunday that Israel must prioritize “prevention and offence over containment and defense”, including pre-emptive strikes to thwart emerging threats, while establishing Israel as a regional power and maximizing its independence in armaments.

WHY THE COURSE IS UNLIKELY TO CHANGE

The election pits Netanyahu's right-wing Likud and its ultranationalist allies against an opposition led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot's Yashar party. Palestinian analyst Ghassan al-Khatib sees no prospect of a fundamental shift in policy towards the Palestinians, with Israeli political parties competing to project harder-line positions as public opinion moves further to the right.

“The substance of the policy remains the same: No to a Palestinian state and yes to further ⁠settlement expansion. On this, they are all in agreement,” he said.

A government led by Netanyahu's opponents might seek to repair ‌Israel's international standing by curbing some settler violence or pursuing settlement expansion with less fanfare. But such changes would ‌be a shift in style rather than substance, al-Khatib said.

In response to Reuters questions on Iran and the West Bank, a State Department spokesperson said Washington would continue to pressure Tehran "as long ‌as Iran devotes its energy revenues to financing attacks on our allies, supporting terrorism around the world, and pursuing other destabilizing actions, we will use all the tools ‌at our disposal to hold the regime accountable."

The spokesperson also said the  United States did not support Israel annexing the West Bank.

"A stable West Bank keeps Israel secure and is in line with this administration’s goal to achieve peace in the region," they said.

Michael Young of the Carnegie Middle East Center said Israel's security establishment and much of its political class share a common strategic outlook, centered on confronting Iran, maintaining "forward defense" and preserving military deterrence, reducing the scope for big policy shifts.

Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group, who has conducted research in the West Bank, said ‌growing settler violence, mounting Palestinian frustration and the absence of a "political horizon" had created combustible conditions, where even a minor trigger could spark a wider uprising.

'VENOMOUS OCTOPUS'

Some regional policymakers ask whether Israel's confrontation with Iran has become the organizing ⁠principle of Middle East security, regardless of who ⁠wins the election.

US President Donald Trump's praise of Netanyahu as a "great warrior prime minister" has reinforced expectations that the Israeli leader will try to finish the campaign against Tehran if he retains power.

Netanyahu has made clear his ambitions extend beyond containing Iran to toppling its clerical rulers.

"There is only one way to remove this threat once and for all: overthrow the regime in Iran," he said at a military officer graduation ceremony on Wednesday, adding it was his directive to the military, Mossad and other security agencies.

“Completing the task means toppling the terrorist regime in Iran, the head of the venomous octopus,” he said in another speech this week.

But military and political analysts question whether anything short of a US-Israeli ground invasion would force Tehran to abandon what it views as its core security interests in what it sees as an existential fight. After surviving months of war, Iran may be betting it can outlast its opponents while continuing to exert pressure through regional allies.

"This is a quagmire," Young said. "The Iranians can outlast Trump."

Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza have been weakened, but the broader network of Iran-aligned groups has survived and the conflict could strengthen Tehran's determination to pursue a nuclear deterrent, the analysts said.