The Knesset parliament will be dissolved in the next couple of days as Israel prepares for early elections. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday proposed to his cabinet that election would be held on Sept. 4.

Political parties have already begun to outline their platforms, with an expected focus on economic and social welfare issues.

However, in the last week, leaders of two left-wing parties warned Netanyahu not to use the interim period to launch an attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Netanyahu has said that a nuclear armed Iran is an existential threat to Israel, and that, if international sanctions aren't effective, Israel may attack to thwart Iranian nuclear activity.

"There is a tendency to always view these kinds of decisions through the prism of elections and prime minister's calculations with regard to their continued premiership," Dr. Emily Landau of Tel Aviv University told Xinhua on Monday.

"However, this issue is an actual issue and it's not a question of doing something for the purpose of winning elections," she added.

Prof. Benny Miller, of the University of Haifa, said that when one looks at possible Israeli actions on Iran, one should keep in mind that there is an election campaign going on in the United States as well, which could lower the risks entailed in an Israeli attack.

Miller said that if reelection predictions about U.S. President Barack Obama are correct, Netanyahu would be better off delaying Israeli attack plans, since "it's not a good idea to be on bad terms with a president that is going to be reelected."

NEGOTIATIONS

Landau said that a far more important factor in affecting possible Israeli actions is the so called P5+1 talks between Teheran and the West.

The P5+1 is made up of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany.

The group held one round of negotiations with Iran in Istanbul last month, and the second round is scheduled to be held in Baghdad in the middle of May.

"What is important for understanding the overall dynamic is to follow these negotiations and to see whether Iran is finally serious with regards to negotiations over its nuclear program," Landau said.

She added that an achievement in this next round would be the most important development in the Iranian nuclear situation.

The Obama administration has expressed its determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

"The most important thing is the international actors that are dealing with Iran and not Israel," Landau said.

"And definitely, Israel's calculations are more serious than just viewing this as a factor in the elections and whether it will enhance or decrease Netanyahu's prospect of being elected," she added.

COORDINATION

Miller said that he didn't see any connection between the September election date and any possible attack on Iran, because there are a number of domestic issues that Netanyahu wants to address.

Netanyahu said Monday that it's important to hold speedy election to maintain political stability, a stability that he has indicated could be threatened by demands made by some of the smaller coalition parties in his government.

Miller argued that if there was any connection between the timing of the elections and any potential Israeli strike on Iran, then these speculations focused on a post-election period.

Polls in Israel indicate that Netanyahu's Likud party would gain more seats, allowing him to form a rightist government similar to the current one.

"It will be a bit too risky to attack before the American elections, because it might influence the elections because of the rise of oil price," Miller said.

Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if it's attacked, and target U.S. troops stationed in Iraq and the Gulf region as retaliation.

"And then Obama will be extremely upset with Netanyahu and would be able to exercise heavy pressure on the Iranian, and especially on the Palestinian issue," Miller added.

Miller argued that the best strategy for Israel was to wait until after the U.S. elections, and then, in coordination with the Americans, determine whether there was a need for military action, based on progress in the P5+1 negotiations.