Over the last thirty-plus years, Benjamin Netanyahu has built his political identity off of one strategic calculation: Iran’s nuclear ambition is the biggest existential threat to Israel. Before there were tensions between Israel and Iran resulting in open conflict, Netanyahu used to say that the world wasn’t paying enough attention to what Iran wanted to do.
For those who support Netanyahu, this is a sign of vision. For those who oppose him, it shows an unhealthy obsession which has led to multiple conflicts in the region. Regardless, the fight between Netanyahu and Iran over Iran’s nuclear program has been one of the defining struggles of our time.
A warning that began decades ago
Netanyahu’s fight against Iran did not start recently related to the current situation in the Middle East. It goes back to the very beginning of his political career.
For most of the 1990s and 2000s, Netanyahu consistently said that Iran’s nuclear weapons program posed not only a major threat to Israel but also a fundamental threat to global peace and stability as well. In 2015, Netanyahu’s warnings received global attention when he spoke at the United States Congress in an attempt to influence the outcome of the nuclear agreement being negotiated by Iran and world powers.
Netanyahu’s speech emphasized that this agreement would not prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons in the future, but would extend the date when this will occur and allow them to increase their influence throughout the region. The address marked a defining moment for U.S.-Israeli relations as Netanyahu directly challenged President Obama’s administration’s policy toward Israel.
The doctrine of “never again”
For Netanyahu, the Iranian nuclear threat is shaped by history. He has often tied Israel’s security doctrine to the lessons of the past, particularly the Shoah, (Holocaust). In his speeches to the United Nations and at other international forums, Netanyahu has insisted that Israel cannot solely count on the international community to guarantee its own existence.
It has been a long time since we have stood by and let our enemies kill us
Israel’s security doctrine has been shaped by how to use a “preemptive” action instead of relying on “containment”.
Israel’s strategy to confront Iran regionally was not limited to the military. As a part of this, Israel built new relationships with other Muslim countries in the Middle East.
Important change have been taking place since the Abraham Accords between the state of Israel and the Arab states. These agreements mark an increasing correlation between Israel and those Sunni Arab regimes which share the common threat posed by Iran.
Through such cooperation with the United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Bahrain, Israel has created a whole new Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape by cooperating on security matters.
The negative development of these relationships created further justification for Netanyahu’s assertion that confrontations with Iran not being just Israeli issues, but resolutions that need to be sought regionally.
From proxy conflict to open confrontation
The regime of Iran has long supported armed groups throughout the region at the expense of Israel and has conducted counter operations for Iran through a series of intelligence operations and defined strikes on assets in Syria, while the Israeli-Iranian conflict has been one of an indirect nature.
Since the Hamas-Israel attack of October 7, 2023, however, the level of violence has led to an opportunity for Israel to conduct a much larger regional military response.
Netanyahu maintains that both Hamas and Hezbollah are part of a larger network which is managed and controlled from Tehran and thus direct confrontation with the Iranian regime is an essential step towards severing the network and reaching a successful conclusion to the conflict.
The strategy used to destabilize Iran is fraught with very high risk.
Iran has become a major military power within the regional landscape. It is also rapidly developing missile and drone capabilities, and has built extensive cooperation with various armed groups throughout the Middle East, all of which add to the potential for a wide-scale regional war.
We are already seeing the economic repercussions of this strategy as international markets have reacted to increased military tensions in the Gulf (particularly around the Strait of Hormuz, where approximately 30% of total global crude oil exports travel through) with dramatic declines in energy values.
A prolonged conflict would undoubtedly have a considerable negative effect on the overall condition of the global economy.
FOR MORE: How the Iran war is sending economic shockwaves across the world — and why India is watching closely
A legacy still being written
Netanyahu’s ongoing campaign against Iran has fundamentally changed the manner in which Israel conducts its foreign policy and has altered the regional balance of power.
Supporters of the campaign argue that it has forced the international community to face the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear weapons program; critics of the campaign contend that it has brought the region closer to the brink of a prolonged conflict.
In either case, what is abundantly clear is that Netanyahu’s long-standing conflict with Iran has forever altered the course of global politics.
Whether this will ultimately prevent a nuclear crisis or create a deeper level of regional instability is the determining factor in judging Netanyahu as one of Israel’s most important leaders throughout its history.
FOR MORE: https://civiclens.in/category/international-news/
About the Author
