Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared deflated in his pre-recorded press statement in northern Israel on Monday, a stark contrast to the confident “absolute victory” speeches he has delivered in recent years.
He stated that he would not allow Israel’s enemies to dictate the state’s security paradigm, saying, “Israel has the full right to defend itself, and it will use that right as much as needed.” Even as he spoke, an alert sounded in Metula after a drone entered the town’s airspace.
Netanyahu can once again claim a policy shift as a personal triumph. What began as military strikes against Hamas has escalated to strikes targeting Iran. Israel, once able to act freely in southern Lebanon and strike Dahiyeh as needed, now faces the reality of Iranian threats promising ballistic retaliation for any future action in the area.
This escalation unfolds while Hezbollah continues launching drones, UAVs, and rockets, Hamas is consolidating strength in the Gaza Strip, and US President Donald Trump nears finalizing an agreement widely seen as a defeat for Israel in its dealings with Iran. Indeed, Netanyahu’s “absolute victory” narrative seems undercut by strategic pressures on multiple fronts.
Israel is not equipped to sustain rounds against Iran. The economy cannot absorb the strain, the public cannot endure it, and the defense establishment faces serious operational challenges. This situation unfolds during the Trump era, which will end in roughly two and a half years. What Israel fails to address now cannot be postponed.
Presently, the country struggles to assert dominance on any front. After years of dramatic military successes, the scoreboard increasingly shows setbacks.
Iran has grown more dangerous. While its military and economy have weakened, the regime feels emboldened, believing it has survived past conflicts against the odds. It seeks revenge and is prepared to obtain a nuclear weapon by any means necessary, even clandestinely from North Korea or through an improvised nuclear test. Yesterday’s strikes were largely symbolic, leaving the underlying threat intact, perhaps even intensified.
Trump: PM does not decide Iran deal, I do
During his appearance, Netanyahu made several striking claims, but mentioned Trump only briefly. On Sunday, Trump told a Financial Times reporter, “Bibi will sign any agreement I bring. He does not decide. He does not decide. Only I decide.” Yet, Netanyahu’s remarks emphasized the need to maintain the personal and political alliance.
“A year ago, in Operation Rising Lion, we stopped Iran's nuclear program," said Netanyahu. "If we had not acted in time and with force, we would not be here today,” suggesting that without Israel’s action last June, Iran would already have acquired nuclear capabilities, a scenario that many analysts consider improbable within a single year.
“As I have done for decades, I firmly stand on our right to act against our enemies," he added. "This is how we acted even now.” Yet critics point to a long history of restraint and concessions, from negotiating monthly payments from Qatar to Hamas, to avoiding direct confrontation with Hamas leadership despite multiple Shin Bet recommendations, releasing prisoners, and tolerating Hezbollah’s military buildup.
Limited Beirut, Iran strikes
Recent military actions provide a mixed record. Netanyahu authorized strikes on Dahiyeh in Beirut against Trump’s wishes and targeted Iran without US approval. However, the strike on Dahiyeh was limited, hitting empty offices, and the Iranian strike avoided sensitive infrastructure to prevent destabilizing oil markets, according to Israel’s ambassador in Washington. As the IAF prepares for potential follow-up strikes, control and messaging largely remain influenced by the US.
Netanyahu’s critics argue that he has tied himself politically to Trump to protect his own position, particularly amid his legal challenges. This alignment, they claim, has constrained Israel’s strategic freedom, leaving the country vulnerable to threats it cannot adequately counter.
Ultimately, Netanyahu’s leadership reflects a paradox: while he presents victories, the state faces mounting strategic risks. His tenure demonstrates a blend of personal political survival and complex regional pressures, leaving Israel with few clear paths to long-term security.