Amid escalating military tensions between Israel and Iran, a legitimate question emerges: is this war strategically necessary, or is it the product of political and media breakdowns at home and abroad?
It is evident that Israel, following its war on Gaza, suffered a severe blow to its international image, particularly in Europe. Public discourse shifted, popular support declined, and calls intensified to hold Israel accountable for human rights violations. As international embarrassment grew, the need arose to manufacture a larger enemy, one that could reposition Israel as a defending party rather than an aggressor and revive Western sympathy.
In this context, Iran emerged as the ideal adversary. Framing confrontation with Iran as a preemptive war against an existential threat restores Israel’s role as a besieged victim and softens the sharp edge of Western criticism.
Beyond this, the war serves a dual purpose. On one hand, it weakens Iran politically and economically, preparing the ground for a new nuclear agreement that US President Donald Trump could market as a major achievement. On the other hand, it offers Benjamin Netanyahu a way out of his domestic crisis, whether stemming from failures in Gaza or his legal cases, by regaining the initiative and reshaping Israeli public priorities.
For Netanyahu, war on Iran is not merely a tool to unite the domestic front but also a means to delay or neutralise legal proceedings that threaten his political future.
The Collapse of Israel’s Image in the West
The latest Gaza war exposed the fragility of Israel’s narrative under the lens of mobile phone cameras. Traditional justifications for targeting civilians collapsed, the image of the so-called ethical army disintegrated, European voices demanding restrictions on support for Tel Aviv multiplied, and boycott campaigns resurfaced across universities and trade unions.
Amid this collapse, Israel required an adversary capable of resetting the equation: a large and frightening opponent that could globalise the conflict and embarrass anyone questioning the legitimacy of Israeli strikes. Iran once again became a ready made headline to advance this agenda.
Netanyahu on the Brink and the Golden Opportunity
Netanyahu, facing harsh domestic criticism after the failures in Gaza and real judicial threats, found himself in need of a dramatic shift.
War on Iran offered not only internal consolidation, but also the postponement or sidelining of legal action that could end his political career. This form of political flight forward is a familiar tactic among leaders cornered by crises.
Trump and the New Nuclear Deal
Israeli escalation intersects directly with the policies of US President Donald Trump, who returned to the White House carrying a more confrontational vision toward Iran.
Trump seeks to reshape the nuclear agreement in a manner that serves Washington’s interests and those of its regional allies. Military pressure on Tehran is viewed as leverage to force Iran back to negotiations on clear American terms.
This escalation also reinforces Netanyahu’s position as Trump’s closest ally in the region. US backing, in this context, appears less like personal solidarity and more like a calculated exchange of interests between two embattled leaders.
This is a war dressed as necessity, yet driven by interest and managed as a tool to redraw the political and media landscape.
The True Losers: The Peoples
Amid these cold calculations, it is the peoples who pay the price. Iranians suffer under sanctions, Lebanese and Palestinians live under constant threat of a new explosion, and Syrians remain trapped between unending fires. The Arab world, meanwhile, is fractured between supporters, silent observers, and those preparing to bear the cost.
War as Political Instrument, Not Security Imperative
Was this war inevitable? Perhaps not. When the context is carefully unpacked, it appears closer to an effort to polish Israel’s image after Gaza, rehabilitate Netanyahu politically, and pave the way for Trump to impose a new agreement on Iran under his own terms.
Ultimately, this may not be a war against the Iranian threat, but a war against political vacuum, against the loss of narrative control, and against an uncertain future facing leaders determined to remain in power at any cost.
