TEHRAN – The Gaza Strip does not appear to be on the brink of a full-scale genocidal war anytime soon. 

Instead, it seems to be a file that Benjamin Netanyahu is carefully using for political gain, keeping the option of escalation open to serve his strategic and political interests.

It is widely understood that military decisions are rarely made without considering political calculations. Elections and security developments often overlap. Gaza has become deeply tied to the internal political dynamics of the Israeli regime. 

The occupying Israeli regime no longer treats the Palestinian territory as a marginal issue, but as a central element in its domestic power struggles.

Netanyahu appears to be deliberately keeping the possibility of another round of indiscriminate aggression against Gaza on the table. This approach is not driven solely by security concerns. It is also a calculated electoral strategy. With 2026 considered a crucial election year, 

The Zionist regime's Prime Minister’s rhetoric and positioning reflect clear political timing. Whenever he appears publicly, Netanyahu hints at renewed military action. These repeated threats reveal how the occupation regime has transformed Gaza into a political instrument. It is a card that can be raised when useful and lowered when necessary.

For years, Gaza has ceased to be an isolated arena in the thinking of the Israeli regime. It is now part of a broader strategic landscape. Decisions regarding the Strip are weighed not only in military terms but also through the lens of political survival.

By keeping the threat of genocidal war alive without immediately launching another one, Netanyahu achieves two main goals. First, he maintains military readiness without draining the regime’s resources in a prolonged confrontation. 

Second, he ensures that security remains the dominant issue in Israeli political life.

Domestically, Netanyahu faces serious challenges. The political scene within the Israeli regime is sharply divided. Legal pressures and internal criticism continue to follow him. 

In this environment, security becomes his strongest political weapon.

Gaza has therefore become an electoral pressure tool. Constant talk of imminent aggression places Israeli voters in a mindset of permanent danger. It reinforces the idea that the regime is under threat and requires experienced leadership. This atmosphere works in Netanyahu’s favor.

Importantly, Netanyahu does not appear to be seeking a final or decisive military outcome in Gaza. Rather than ending the aggression altogether, he seems focused on managing it. A genocidal war close to elections, or even a serious threat of one, can reorder public priorities. Issues such as corruption or political division are pushed aside when security dominates headlines.

His statements suggest a strategy of managing aggression, not resolving it. Despite his hardline rhetoric, Netanyahu understands that eliminating Hamas and other Palestinian resistance forces would come at an enormous cost, both internally and internationally. 

For that reason, the threat of genocidal war remains suspended, ready to be activated or de-escalated depending on political needs.

Electorally, keeping the idea of genocidal war alive is powerful. Even without full-scale fighting, the atmosphere of war can rally support around Netanyahu and his party. 

Voters are generally less willing to change leadership during periods of perceived national crisis. The closer any aggression is to election day, the greater its potential impact on voter behavior. This fully applies to the Zionist regime. 

At the same time, Netanyahu is aware of the risks. A return to prolonged genocidal war that spirals beyond control could turn from an electoral asset into a heavy political burden. For now, his preferred approach seems to be maintaining the possibility of escalation without committing to it fully.

Meanwhile, Gaza remains trapped in this political calculation. The blockade continues. Humanitarian conditions worsen. Reconstruction is stalled. The people of Gaza live under the shadow of potential aggression that may or may not materialize.

Hamas and other Palestinian resistance movements understand these dynamics. They are likely preparing for different scenarios while trying to avoid a full-scale genocide that may not serve their interests at this moment. 

The result is a prolonged standoff and a tense war of nerves.

Ultimately, Gaza is not simply a battlefield in Netanyahu’s thinking. It is a long-term political tool. For the Israeli regime, the aggression does not necessarily need to erupt fully. It only needs to remain possible, ready to ignite if it helps reproduce Netanyahu politically and secure his hold over the occupation regime’s leadership.