An attempt to understand Netanyahu’s decision-making process regarding the Tehran assassination through an imagined briefing with a trusted journalist exploring the rationale and strategic considerations that may have influenced this bold move
Assuming Israel was indeed behind the killing of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh, a troubling question arises. In view of the devastated northern settlements and the transformation of tens of thousands of residents into refugees, the government repeatedly explains that patience is required; we must focus our energies on the war against Hamas. Is it possible that this consideration was overlooked in the decision-making process leading to the attack in Tehran? Did anyone assess that Iran would tolerate such a humiliating blow to its sovereignty and honor?
My approach is entirely different from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s, and I believe his way severely undermines Israel’s future. However, to effectively counter his assumptions, one must explore their logic rather than dismiss them as mere expressions of self-interest.
The following lines are an attempt to understand Netanyahu through an imagined briefing that never took place, in which he explains himself to a trusted journalist: It is important that what I’m about to tell you is documented and preserved for the day it can be published. I feel the fate of the Jewish people rests on my shoulders. Around me are dwarfs, some evil-hearted, some soft-hearted, others just fools. People refuse to accept that we are undergoing an ultimate test of our existence as a nation. They attack me over cigars and champagne, over the plane in which I fly.
They’re busy with nonsense and interpret my every move as if it were intended to ensure the coalition’s survival and satisfy my personal needs. They don’t truly engage with my strategic vision, and of course, they present no real alternative to it.
The threat to Israel’s existence is not in Gaza, Lebanon or Yemen. The octopus’s head is in Tehran, and its long arms extend across the region. If its head is crushed, the arms will wither. I was the first to warn that Iran was determined to develop nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. Many dismissed my warnings. So far, efforts to stop Iran, including my own, have fallen flat.
Many bury their heads in the sand, losing the will and ability to look at the landscape of threats and prioritize them by severity. Not me. What’s critical for the future of Israel and the Jewish people is not the “day after” in Gaza, but the day after in Tehran. The current campaign is fueled and guided by Iran. Its rulers don’t waste a moment in their pursuit of a nuclear bomb. My historical mission is clear: to prevent Iran from getting that bomb in order to save Israel from annihilation.
Accomplishing this mission requires the active participation of the United States. We’ve learned that Washington is reluctant to take on this daunting challenge. Both political parties prefer a containment strategy regarding Iran. But containment has failed, and Israel doesn’t have the luxury of time for further attempts. We know how grim our situation would be if the current war were being conducted beneath the veil of Iranian nukes.
Many in the U.S. understand that the war Israel is fighting is actually a war between the free world and the dark forces that aspire to destroy Western civilization. But it’s a long road from theoretical understandings and practical conclusions. In recent years, I’ve worked hard to convince successive American administrations to lead the campaign against Iran, but I’m not blind to the fact that the U.S. is hesitant to fulfill its historical destiny.
Time is running out. When Israel’s very existence is in doubt, we can’t afford to be nice guys – the stakes are too high. If efforts at persuasion fail, we must prod Washington to fulfill its destiny. And who better understands the intricacies of U.S. politics and public opinion than me? This pre-election period is particularly favorable for sophisticated maneuvering. No presidential candidate, including the one who has officially left the race and is concerned about his legacy, wants to appear as a loser. If we wait for the fifth of November, we’ll find the White House less attentive to our vital quest and less willing to cooperate with us militarily against Iran. On this critical issue, I have no illusions, not even regarding my good friend Donald Trump.
While our doomsday clock is ticking, a one-time opportunity has opened to mobilize the U.S. for a war that will relieve Israel of its existential threat. This is why we are escalating our strikes on Iran. We aim to leave the ayatollahs no choice but to respond harshly against us; then we will retaliate even more severely. The U.S. will be dragged into increasing its involvement until it becomes a leading partner in the campaign. This will end with the destruction of the octopus’s head in Tehran and the regrowth of a pro-West Iranian government that will dismantle its nuclear program and swear off its proxies in the region.
My critics claim that a deal with Hamas would lead to the release of some of the hostages and lay the ground for a cease-fire in the north. But they are exhausted and have lost their fighting spirit. They are willing to trade Israel’s future for a few days of quiet.
True calm in Gaza and Lebanon will only come after the regime of ayatollahs is destroyed. This is what I’m focused on. Future historians will describe how alone and justified I stood in my unwavering beliefs, and how much slander my family and I had to withstand. Howver, I am confident that Jewish history will appreciate my tenure as a resounding example of leadership and a singular milestone in safeguarding my state and my people.
This concludes the briefing I imagined, which, as emphasized, never took place and is entirely fictional!
If there is any chance that the imagined “briefing conversation” reflects Netanyahu’s views, which I completely oppose and see as a disaster for Israel, his opponents must seriously confront the substance of these arguments. Simply hurling accusations, however justified, about Netanyahu’s personal conduct and selfish considerations, disregards a strategic debate of existential significance for Israel’s future.