In both war and politics, victory isn’t always the objective. Sometimes, it is enough to appear as though you’re in control—whether over your enemy, audience, or allies. The illusion of dominance can be as powerful as the reality of it.
This logic defines Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s behaviour in the week following Israel’s surprise escalation against Iran.
From high-profile strikes deep inside Iranian territory to conflicting signals in every direction, Netanyahu deliberately invoked the language of strength and sovereignty. Facing failure in Gaza and unrest at home, he chose to retreat forward donning the mask of a leader still pulling the strings, even as those strings begin to burn.
Gaza Stalemate: No Victory, No Deal in Sight
By early June 2025, Israel found itself at one of the most complex strategic junctures since its founding.
No military victory in Gaza, no meaningful hostage deal, no clear exit.
The Trump administration, cautious and reluctant, applied only modest pressure to de-escalate the situation. A report published by Axios highlighted the Pentagon’s hesitancy to be dragged into a confrontation with Iran.
Meanwhile, Israel’s military was overstretched, international opinion was shifting, and the home front was unravelling. Continued strikes by the Houthis, public frustration, rocket barrages, and elite divisions were all compounding the crisis.
Amid this impasse, Israel’s security and political establishment began floating two diverging strategies:
- A major hostage exchange deal in Gaza, even if it meant political humiliation.
- Or a new confrontation that resets the board and breaks the current strategic siege.
For Netanyahu, the deal option smelled of political defeat. Escalation with Iran, however, was a twofold tactic:
First, to distract the public; second, to force U.S. involvement—just when even Trump and his allies preferred de-escalation.
Toward Tehran: Calculated Escalation, Not Madness
The U.S. strike on Iran carried out today was not merely a reckless military gamble. It was the result of accumulated internal and regional pressures.
Israel knows it cannot single-handedly destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities—sites like Fordow are buried under mountains, and newer sites like Natanz are heavily fortified. Even the Israeli military and intelligence community, including hardline Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, accept this limitation.
But what Israel does possess is a different weapon: the ability to provoke crises, manipulate optics, and corner Washington into action. And it may have just succeeded.
This brings us to the real question:
Was the U.S. strike meant to eliminate the Iranian threat, or was it a pressure tactic to bring Iran back to the negotiating table—on terms that bypass Israel’s calculations and aim for a broader settlement?
Netanyahu may be betting on the former. But deep down, he knows that Trump—approaching the end of his term—is unlikely to enter a full-scale war with Iran.
From Rhetoric to Reality: Power in Words or Power in Action?
Domestically, Netanyahu returned to his default weapon: rhetoric.
“We can strike all of Iran’s nuclear sites.”
“We want Tehran to kneel.”
“The assassination of Nasrallah shattered the Iranian axis.”
Bluster inflated by satellite imagery and grand historical metaphors. But behind the theatrics lies a bitter truth: Israel cannot act alone.
- To topple the Iranian regime, it needs the Pentagon.
- To bomb hardened nuclear sites, it needs U.S. B-2 bombers.
- To negotiate a diplomatic exit, it needs Washington’s umbrella.
So, after today’s U.S. strike on Iran, a more critical question emerges:
Will Israel allow Washington to shape the final outcome? Or does it still seek to retain exclusive control over escalation?
Pearl Harbor or Political Mirage? Israel’s Fragile Narrative
To dramatise the moment, Israeli officials and analysts leaned into historic analogies:
“A reversed Pearl Harbor,”
“An Iranian Hiroshima,”
“The strike that will reshape the Middle East like 1967.”
But these comparisons expose more fragility than strength.
Iran’s response was swift, hitting sensitive Israeli sites and triggering panic within Israel’s security apparatus.
Within hours, Israeli authorities imposed emergency censorship, confiscated journalists’ equipment, interrogated Arab reporters, and restricted even citizen-captured videos. This wasn’t just about military secrecy—it was about salvaging the illusion of supremacy before it collapsed in real-time.
Inside Israel, over 22,000 compensation claims were filed according to emergency agency estimates. Hebrew media reported the displacement of more than 8,000 people, a 40% drop in domestic tourism, and a total shutdown of airspace.
Yet the streets remain quiet. No mass protests from families of hostages. No surge of public outrage. Why?
Because Netanyahu has spent two decades branding every war as existential—a continuation of 1967, masking past failures and looming defeats. But that narrative might not hold much longer—especially if this war drags on without delivering a game-changing outcome.
Iran’s Response: A Warning Wrapped in Restraint
Though Iran’s counterattack was limited, it redefined the confrontation in Israeli public consciousness.
At the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), analysts argued that Iran’s response was calculated—demonstrating capability without inviting a full-scale war. Meanwhile, some Israeli defense officials acknowledged that Israel had crossed red lines, opening the door to further escalation.
This divide extended into the political elite:
While Netanyahu touted “major achievements,” more rational voices warned of a strategy-free gamble, and others feared Netanyahu might drag Israel into an open war to preserve his own political survival.
How Israel Perceives Iran Today
To Israel, Iran is not just a nuclear threat—it is the head of a resistance axis stretching from Yemen to Gaza, via Iraq and Lebanon.
Unlike its approach to Hamas or Hezbollah, where intelligence and surgical strikes dominate, Israel views Iran as a strategic enemy. The aim is to destroy sovereign infrastructure, dismantle deterrence, and turn Iran into an exposed, defenceless state—a “violated airspace,” as one analyst put it.
This isn’t just about deterrence. It’s about delegitimising Iran entirely, pushing it toward collapse without occupation.
But today, Israel stands not just at a crossroads—it’s facing its own reflection:
- In Gaza, it achieved none of its objectives.
- Internally, it suffers total exhaustion.
- Internationally, legitimacy is eroding fast.
- Even in Washington, its closest allies urge de-escalation.
Amid this erosion, the strike on Iran is Israel’s last attempt to seize the stage. But it could also be its final leap into the void.
Without a Gaza ceasefire, or an Iran nuclear deal, Israel may soon find itself without any cards left to play.
The Real Danger Isn’t the Strike—It’s the Absence of an Exit Strategy
The crisis is no longer limited to Tehran or Gaza. It lies in Israel’s inability to convert overwhelming force into sustainable political outcomes.
At this point, every front opened is an added burden, not an opportunity. Every missile launched brings Israel closer to a confrontation with itself.
What looks like a bold offensive step may very well mark the fracture line—especially when wars are waged without a ceiling, without a strategy, and without partners.
Perhaps that is why Israel today appears stronger than ever—and more fragile than ever.
One Ummah. One platform. One mission.
Your support keeps it alive.
Click here to Donate & Fund your Islamic Independent Platform
