Liberman calls for Netanyahu treason probe over alleged attempt to start war to delay elections

Israel’s military leadership denies plans existed to strike Iran on October 10, contradicting a recent report that claimed US President Donald Trump blocked a pre-planned Israeli attack. Sources familiar with the matter stated that neither Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor Defense Minister Israel Katz issued orders for the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for an offensive against the Islamic Republic during that period. Consequently, the premise that Washington intervened to stop an imminent Israeli operation is incorrect, as no such operation was scheduled. While the IDF maintained a state of high alert in the days surrounding the October 7 anniversary due to fears of Iranian aggression, this defensive posture differed significantly from the explicit offensive preparations ordered prior to the conflicts of June 2025 and early 2026. The denial arrives amid intense political maneuvering ahead of Israel’s general election on October 27. Opposition figures have leveraged conflicting narratives regarding military intentions to criticize the government. Avigdor Liberman, chair of the Yisrael Beytenu party, called on Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara to open a criminal investigation into Netanyahu on suspicion of treason. Liberman alleged that the Prime Minister attempted to provoke a military confrontation with Iran to delay the vote, describing the conduct as a betrayal of the state. In a statement posted on social media, Liberman described the relationship between the military and political leadership as historically strained. He quoted Netanyahu’s shifting rhetoric, noting one day he threatened a crypto bomb and the next an atomic bomb, while simultaneously claiming to have destroyed Iran’s arsenal. Liberman argued that the Chief of Staff had a duty to prevent the military from being used for political ends and to shield soldiers from unnecessary risk. Defense Minister Israel Katz rejected the accusations outright. He asserted that coordination between the Prime Minister, his office, and the IDF regarding Iran has been complete and resulted in historic security achievements. Katz stated unequivocally that Israel had no intention to initiate an attack on Iran before the elections. He dismissed reports to the contrary as false and labeled the attempts by opposition figures to exploit them as shameful and irresponsible. Katz emphasized that Israel’s policy remained clear: if Iran attacks, Israel will respond with great force. Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump intensified his public support for Netanyahu, issuing a second formal endorsement on Sunday evening via Truth Social. Days before the election, Trump urged Israelis to vote for the Prime Minister, whom he described as an outstanding warrior. He referenced the strong partnership between the two leaders, specifically citing Operation Midnight Hammer and Operation Epic Fury. Trump claimed that these campaigns left Iran with no navy, no air force, and a shattered economy, noting that inflation in Iran had reached 301 percent. He warned that if Israel elected a leader other than Netanyahu, the United States would be forced to handle the situation alone, a task he said he was not inclined to undertake. Reports indicate that Netanyahu actively sought this renewed support. According to accounts from American sources, the Prime Minister and his allies increased pressure on the White House to issue fresh statements of backing. Netanyahu reportedly spoke with Trump twice in the three days prior to the endorsement and even suggested specific wording for the messages. An Israeli source indicated that Netanyahu proposed Trump speak directly with Israeli journalists to reaffirm his support. However, Netanyahu’s Likud party denied these claims. Spokeswoman Neta Molcho stated that the Prime Minister had not requested campaign assistance from Trump, either recently or prior to the previous endorsement. The backdrop for these political exchanges includes ongoing tensions regarding the status of the conflict. Since the April 7 ceasefire between Israel and Iran, the IDF has occasionally moved to a war footing, particularly when intelligence suggested Tehran might launch an attack or when Washington considered a joint operation. In August, Trump publicly acknowledged that he had withdrawn from a planned attack on Iran that could have included Israeli participation. Recently, Trump escalated verbal threats against Iran, specifically targeting the Pickaxe Mountain site. Analysts noted that had Washington proceeded with a strike, Israeli involvement would have become more probable. However, sources questioned the feasibility of a larger-scale future attack, arguing that Iran has not sufficiently repaired the damage inflicted by the approximately 30,000 bombs dropped during the early 2026 war. Although senior Israeli officials have advocated for more robust targeting of Iran’s energy sector, this shift in strategy does not equate to a larger overall scale of engagement compared to the previous campaign. Diplomatic friction also surfaced during a recent visit by US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to the Ovda air force base. Sources found it unusual that IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir was not invited to the meeting. Historically, visits by US defense secretaries to Israel invariably include the IDF Chief of Staff given his influence on strategic decisions. Speculation suggests that political considerations regarding how to portray the visit may have influenced the guest list. In a separate move, Netanyahu shared a text on social media authored by writer Yuval Bloomberg, accompanied by an artificial intelligence-generated image of a nuclear explosion in Tel Aviv. The text warned of a potential second Holocaust if Netanyahu was not reelected, framing the threat from Iran and its allies as existential. The message highlighted the remaining term of the Trump administration as a window to conclude operations in Iran, contrasting this with the uncertainty of a future US administration led by opponents like Kamala Harris or Zohran Mamdani. The juxtaposition of these warnings with the military’s denial of immediate offensive plans underscores the complex interplay between domestic politics, international alliances, and security strategy as the election approaches.