Israel May Lose... But Netanyahu is the Certain Winner

In politics, it is said: "The promise that is difficult to fulfill can be maintained." Delivering a blow to Iran and its nuclear project has remained a promise that Benjamin Netanyahu has carried for the Israeli people throughout the governments he has led for more than a decade and a half. As soon as Netanyahu decided to carry out a military strike on Iran at dawn on the thirteenth of June last, he was entering history and renewing his political career, as "Bibi fulfilled what he promised."

Netanyahu, as a right-wing Zionist leader who has dominated the position of prime minister since 2009, took it upon himself the Zionist mobilizational role of demonizing Iran and instilling fear about its nuclear program in international forums, particularly in the United States, rallying support against Iran. This came through a series of speeches delivered by Netanyahu at the United Nations and Congress about the necessity of halting Iran's nuclear ambitions, describing it as a threat not only to Israel but also to Western and specifically American interests in the region. Thus, the Zionist narrative regarding Iran's nuclear program has continued to proliferate over 15 years in the ears of the West and the world, specifically through Netanyahu's words.

In a report published by the Hebrew newspaper "Haaretz" dating back to August 2015, based on recorded messages from Ehud Barak, who served as Minister of Defense in a government led by Netanyahu in 2011, the report illustrates the three attempts when Benjamin Netanyahu and his government were on the verge of striking Iran but backed down at the last moment... The first was in 2010, when Netanyahu, along with his ministers for defense and foreign affairs, Barak and Lieberman, agreed to strike Iranian nuclear reactors, but the then Chief of Staff, Gabi Ashkenazi, intervened, objecting that the army's readiness did not allow for it, which forced Netanyahu to back down.

A year later, in 2011, when the military was in a position to carry out a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, which Netanyahu wanted, some leaders who were members of what was then known as the "Eight Security Committee,” including Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon (Bogie) and Minister Yuval Steinitz, objected, leading to a second withdrawal from striking Iran. In 2012, Netanyahu decided to revive the idea of striking Iranian reactors, but military maneuvers conducted by American forces in the region prevented that, according to Ehud Barak's account.

Since then, the direct military strike on Iranian nuclear reactors has been postponed, especially with the nuclear agreement concluded by former U.S. President Barack Obama with the Iranians in 2015. However, Netanyahu continued to hint at the feasibility of targeting Iran and its nuclear program, resorting, in cooperation with the leaders of the occupying army and security agencies, primarily the "Mossad," to eliminate Iranian scientists, the most prominent being Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, who was ambushed deep in Iranian territory in November, in addition to targeting Iranian military sites in Syria. Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear agreement with Iran in May 2017 further solidified Netanyahu's position advocating for a military confrontation with Iran's nuclear ambitions, as Netanyahu himself was behind President Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear agreement during his first term.

This was a summary of Israel's narrative regarding the Iranian nuclear file; a narrative represented through the voice of its almost permanent prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, forming a national and existential promise that was realized with the beginning of the "Awakening Lion" operation at dawn on June thirteenth, leading the entire Israeli-Jewish community, across its political parties and social powers, to stand behind the operation and its architect, "Bibi," portraying the latter as a "national hero" who has always taken upon himself the confrontation with Iran and its program. By initiating a strike on Iran within its territory, Netanyahu represented for himself a "historic victory" that counts for him and will remain associated with him in the memory of the Hebrew state and its people.

However, this is not the only context for Netanyahu's decision and his advance to deliver a military strike in deep Iran, which would not have happened without a green light from the United States to carry it out and the Zionist-national consensus on its necessity. The other context is connected to the Al-Aqsa flood and the open war in response to it on Gaza and Iran's arms from the resistance axis, especially the war against the Lebanese Hezbollah and weakening it by eliminating its most prominent leaders, making it clear that the party's influence was at its peak, then the ousting of the Assad regime, which resulted in the withdrawal of Iranian forces from Syria. Netanyahu considered this an achievement credited to his war, not in terms of changing the bordering countries (Syria and Lebanon) caused by the war, but rather as a dismantling of the Iranian strategy that aimed to make the confrontation with Israel outside Iranian territory, enabling it over decades to empower its allies in the Arab region. This led Iran to find itself compelled to defend itself in the skies of Tehran.

Netanyahu was fully aware that a direct military confrontation with a state the size of Iran is different from confronting any of its allies in the Arab region, so he was keen throughout his media campaign against Iran to separate the regime of Iran from the Iranian people, and to specify the objectives and priorities of the confrontation related to military aspects: striking nuclear program reactor facilities and Iranian missile capabilities in a manner that seemed calculated for Netanyahu and his government like sewing with needle and thread, not to embroil him or his army in a war of attrition that the Israeli army and society could not bear the costs of with a state like Iran.

The entry of the United States into the confrontation in the early hours of June nineteenth last in favor of Israel against Iran, by striking its nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, was an additional winning card credited to Netanyahu, as long as this latter managed to convince Trump to intervene, regardless of the actual damage inflicted on the Iranian reactor and nuclear program as a result of the American bombardment. The United States intervened, but on its terms and not on Netanyahu's conditions, in a limited and specific military strike, without any affectation on the structure of the regime in Iran.

Israel would not have been able to sustain a military confrontation with Iran and bear its costs if the confrontation continued and turned into a war of attrition, especially given the Iranian missile attacks that targeted deep into Israeli cities, which would have made the war bear a real cost. Netanyahu quickly realized this, welcoming a ceasefire, or perhaps he sought it through American-Qatari mediation, hastening to announce the victory of the military operation and achieving its goals in "eradicating" the Iranian nuclear dream, along with the American intervention, which preceded it by eliminating Iranian leaders and scientists, in addition to targeting military sites and vital facilities, accompanied by a complete violation of Iranian airspace after neutralizing its air defense system... "Netanyahu knew how to start the war and how to end it."

There is no political party in Israel opposing Netanyahu and his government today that is seriously considering early elections. It is not coincidental that immediately after the confrontation with Iran, the file of prosecuting Netanyahu on corruption charges was brought back to the forefront again, in an attempt not aimed at politically disposing of Netanyahu, but rather seeking to undermine the image shaped by a series of wars portraying him as a "hero" of Zionism. The winner is Netanyahu, both the person and the approach, which does not bode well for Zionist victories ending its wars towards settlements and dreams of a Middle Eastern peace as some may believe, but rather heralds the beginning of a new phase of confrontation with Zionism in its current Zionist-religious and fascist version, where Palestinian-Arab awareness and memory will be its main pivot.