Why Netanyahu might want to swing the US election for Trump

The Israeli prime minister has been accused of tipping the scales in the former president’s favour, writes Mark Almond. But could he actually help decide the race?

In the year since the Hamas rampage into southern Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has found himself coordinating a war on five fronts: the IDF is fighting on the ground in Gaza and Lebanon; an air and intelligence war against the Houthis in Yemen; with Iran’s proxies; and, most riskily, against Iran directly.

Yet Mr Netanyahu struggles to win on a sixth front, which is the most important for determining Israel’s future security and his political future.

Who wins the US presidential race on 5 November is a life-and-death issue in the Israeli premier’s mind.

For all of Israel’s military and Mossad prowess, the country’s ultimate security is in the hands of Washington, its arsenal and bankroller.

President Biden’s extraordinary flurry of public statements about what Israel’s response to Iran’s 181 missiles should be – and, more glaringly, what it shouldn’t be – has gone hand-in-hand with musing in front of the microphones about whether Netanyahu is playing on US public opinion to get Donald Trump re-elected.

During a briefing on Friday, Biden was asked whether the Israeli prime minister is holding off on establishing a Gaza ceasefire deal to influence the upcoming election. The president responded, “I don’t know – but I’m not counting on that.”

Americans have gotten used to allegations in recent years of foreign interference in their elections. The assumption is that such skulduggery is the work of hostile rivals such as Russia or China, or even Iran, who were accused recently of hacking Trump campaign emails.

It is obvious why international opponents of the United States would try to influence the outcome of American elections. But friends, too, have strong – maybe stronger – reasons for trying to get their favoured candidate into the White House.

Back in 1940, Britain was fighting alone against the Nazi threat. MI6 agents including the future advertising mogul, David Ogilvy, produced doctored opinion polls to boost the campaign of the one non-isolationist Republican, Wendell Willkie. Churchill wanted to ensure that even if Franklin Roosevelt lost, the presidency would go to a pro-Lend-Lease candidate. Other public schoolboy spies set up pranks to embarrass the Republican frontrunner, the arch-isolationist, senator Robert Taft.

Less defensible election interference came in 1968, when America’s anti-Communist Asian allies, Chiang Kai-shek in Taiwan and Nguyen Van Thieu in South Vietnam, lavishly funded Richard Nixon’s campaign with diverted US aid money. Thieu went further to sabotage the incumbent Democrats’ peace feelers with North Vietnam.

Nixon, of course, double-crossed Chiang by recognising Mao’s China in 1971, showing that even successful election interference doesn’t necessarily buy policy afterwards.

The term “October Surprise” was popularised by Ronald Reagan’s campaign manager, William Casey, who in 1980 warned that Jimmy Carter was going to pull off a deal with Iran in the run-up to the election in November. In fact, Casey, as a veteran US intelligence agent and the future director of the CIA, was engaged in backdoor talks with the Ayatollah’s agents to spin out the hostage crisis until after Carter was defeated.

Ironically, Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday celebrations have reminded Americans of a Democrat president seemingly powerless to control events in the Middle East in an election year.

If the Biden administration refuses to authorise Pentagon and intelligence assistance to a huge Israeli strike against Iran, that could play into the hands of Netanyahu and Trump. Blaming Biden for “appeasing” Iran could push American voters with long memories of their country’s humiliation by Iran during the hostage crisis into Trump’s arms.

Americans have been remarkably tolerant of Benjamin Netanyahu’s recurrent interventions in their politics. His speeches before Congress, as well as at the UN and regular interviews in American media, have effectively made him a domestic political actor to many Americans. Of course, despite his fluent American English and deep personal ties to the US, Netanyahu’s priorities are Israeli, and his political fate is bound up with his country’s.

Of course, there has been a bipartisan consensus behind Israel. Both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have expressed fundamental backing for Israel and promised to defend it against Iran.

What divides the current Democrat team in the White House from Donald Trump’s insurgency is the reluctance of Biden-Harris to give Netanyahu a blank cheque for any kind of attack on Iran.

Going for the Ayatollah’s throat is probably a vote-winner in America, whereas the grinding down of Gaza and Lebanon worries swing voters’ consciences.

Benjamin Netanyahu is, however, well aware of how disliked he is in Democrat circles for his partisan backing for Maga Republicans. Donald Trump as president recognised Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel, scuppering a key component of any two-state solution to the Palestinian question. He also recognised the Golan Heights as part of Israel, confirming Syria’s antagonism to the USA as well as Israel. Now Trump backs Netanyahu’s preference for targeting Iran’s nuclear projects and its oil exports.

The coming month in America will decide whether Benjamin Netanyahu can win his six-front war in its most decisive battleground: Washington.

Mark Almond is director of the Crisis Research Institute, Oxford