Trump Re-Endorses Netanyahu Before Israeli Election, Cites Iran Operations as Proof of Partnership

What Happened

President Donald Trump renewed his endorsement of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday evening, October 25, 2026, urging Israelis to vote for Netanyahu in Tuesday's election with a call to "finish the job" against Iran. Trump posted on Truth Social: "Vote for Bibi Netanyahu for Prime Minister, we have to finish the job that we started!" He credited his partnership with Netanyahu for military successes including Operation Midnight Hammer, which targeted Iran's nuclear facilities, and Operation Epic Fury, the broader U.S. military campaign against the Iranian regime. Trump declared Iran now has "No Navy, No Air Force, and both their Military and Economy are in shambles," citing 301 percent inflation and a U.S. naval blockade restricting oil revenue. The endorsement came two days before Israelis head to polls on October 27 for the country's first national election since the October 7 attacks. Final polls showed neither Netanyahu's coalition nor the opposition bloc reaching the 61 seats required for a majority in the 120-seat Knesset. Netanyahu responded to Trump's endorsement by declaring, "Together we will complete the mission!"

What the Evidence Establishes

Multiple source documents confirm Trump's Sunday endorsement explicitly linked Netanyahu's reelection to the continuation of military pressure on Iran. Trump's Truth Social post named two specific operations: Operation Midnight Hammer targeting nuclear facilities and Operation Epic Fury as the broader campaign. He provided specific claims about Iranian degradation — elimination of successive military and political leadership levels, total loss of naval and air capabilities, 301 percent inflation, and a naval blockade choking oil revenue. Trump also revealed his own decision calculus regarding Iran during a Fox News interview Sunday: "Do I make a deal with them or do I finish them off? That's the only question." The Axios report, citing a U.S. source familiar with conversations, stated Netanyahu spoke with Trump twice over the preceding three days asking him to reinforce his endorsement and suggesting language for additional statements. Likud spokeswoman Neta Molcho denied the prime minister requested campaign support either recently or before last Sunday's initial endorsement. Netanyahu's own campaign actions Sunday included releasing a video featuring an AI-generated nuclear explosion over Tel Aviv warning of a "second Holocaust" and visiting an Arrow missile-defense battery where he warned Iranian proxies might attempt attacks to disrupt Tuesday's vote.

Where the Accounts Conflict

A direct contradiction exists between the Axios report and the Likud party's official denial regarding Netanyahu's role in soliciting Trump's renewed endorsement. Axios, citing a U.S. source familiar with the conversations, reported Netanyahu personally called Trump twice in the three days before Sunday's endorsement to request public reinforcement and suggest specific language for statements of support. Likud spokeswoman Neta Molcho categorically denied this, stating the prime minister had not requested campaign support from Trump "either recently or before last Sunday's endorsement." The two accounts cannot both be accurate — either Netanyahu actively sought the intervention or he did not. Additionally, Trump's claims about Iran's military and economic collapse — "No Navy, No Air Force," 301 percent inflation, total leadership decapitation — appear in his own statements but lack independent verification from the provided sources. The Al Jazeera report on Eisenkot's final rally presents a competing narrative frame, with the former military chief declaring "Netanyahu must go home" and positioning himself as a moderate alternative, directly contradicting Trump's characterization of Netanyahu as an "outstanding Warrior Prime Minister" essential to U.S. interests. The polling data showing neither bloc reaching 61 seats adds another layer: Trump's endorsement may not be decisive in a fragmented electorate.

Context and Stakes

This election represents Israel's first national vote since the October 7, 2023 attacks, making it a referendum on Netanyahu's security doctrine and his management of the multi-front war that followed. Trump's endorsement carries unusual weight because he explicitly tied Netanyahu's political survival to U.S. strategic calculations on Iran — stating that if Israel chooses "the wrong Leader," meaning anyone other than Netanyahu, "America will have to do this work ourselves, and I am not inclined to do so." This frames the Israeli election as a decision point for U.S. military commitment in the Middle East. The operations Trump cited — Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury — suggest a coordinated U.S.-Israeli campaign that has reportedly degraded Iranian conventional capabilities to near-zero. Netanyahu's campaign rhetoric has escalated to existential warnings: his AI-generated video depicting a nuclear explosion over Tel Aviv with a "second Holocaust" warning, combined with intelligence claims that Iran and proxies may attack to disrupt the vote, signals a campaign strategy centered on maximum threat perception. Eisenkot's challenge from the center-right, leveraging his credentials as former IDF chief of staff, offers voters a security alternative without Netanyahu's polarizing baggage. The deadlocked polls — neither bloc near 61 seats — mean post-election coalition arithmetic will determine the outcome, potentially giving smaller parties kingmaker power regardless of Trump's intervention.

What to Watch Next

Three immediate flashpoints merit close tracking. First, Tuesday's election results and the subsequent coalition negotiations: with neither bloc polling at a majority, the composition of the next government — and whether Netanyahu can assemble 61 seats — will test whether Trump's endorsement moved measurable numbers of voters. Second, Trump's Iran decision: his Fox News statement "Do I make a deal with them or do I finish them off?" suggests a binary choice he may announce or act on shortly after the Israeli vote, particularly if Netanyahu wins. A Netanyahu victory would likely embolden Trump to pursue the "finish them off" path; a defeat could push him toward negotiation or unilateral U.S. action. Third, Netanyahu's warning that Iran and proxies may attempt attacks to disrupt Tuesday's election — if such attacks occur, they could trigger immediate Israeli retaliation and potentially draw in U.S. forces, altering the regional calculus before a new government forms. Additionally, the Axios-Likud contradiction over whether Netanyahu solicited the endorsement may draw further reporting; if corroborated, it would indicate coordination between a sitting prime minister and a foreign leader on domestic election interference. The 301 percent inflation figure Trump cited for Iran also warrants verification — if accurate, it suggests economic collapse that could destabilize the regime independently of military action.

Bottom Line

Trump's re-endorsement of Netanyahu is not a routine diplomatic gesture — it is an explicit linkage of Israeli domestic politics to U.S. war-making decisions on Iran. By stating he is "not inclined" to confront Iran without Netanyahu as partner, Trump has made the Israeli election a determinant of American military posture. The evidence establishes that Trump views the two operations — Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury — as joint achievements that shattered Iranian conventional power, and he sees Netanyahu as indispensable to completing the campaign. The conflicting accounts over whether Netanyahu actively solicited the endorsement raise questions about coordination between the two leaders on the eve of a foreign election. Meanwhile, Netanyahu's own campaign has adopted apocalyptic rhetoric — AI-generated nuclear Holocaust imagery, warnings of election-day attacks — that mirrors Trump's framing of Iran as an existential threat requiring total elimination. The fragmented polling suggests the endorsement may not deliver a governing majority, potentially producing a coalition dependent on parties with different Iran policies. What happens Tuesday will determine whether the U.S.-Israeli "finish the job" strategy continues, stalls, or fractures — with direct consequences for Iranian regime survival, regional stability, and American military commitments.