For around four decades, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pursued a policy aimed at drawing the United States into a war with Iran. Previous U.S. administrations rejected this approach, largely due to resistance within the Pentagon, which did not view Iran as an existential threat and did not expect a favorable outcome for the United States or its regional allies. Under President Donald Trump, however, there was a shift closer to Israel’s position. Former National Counterterrorism Center director Joseph Kent resigned in protest, stating that Iran posed no immediate threat and that the war had been largely driven by Israeli pressure.
The official justifications for the war remain inconsistent. Cited reasons include Iran’s nuclear program, its missile capabilities, preemptive security concerns, domestic repression within Iran, and the fight against terrorism. At the same time, a broader strategic objective becomes apparent: while both the United States and Israel seek regime change, Israel also appears to pursue the weakening and possible fragmentation of Iran into ethnic and religious enclaves. Such an outcome would strengthen Israel’s regional dominance and facilitate access to significant energy resources, including the world’s second-largest natural gas reserves and roughly twelve percent of global oil reserves.
Within Israel, a security-focused mindset strongly shapes political thinking. Threats are often perceived as existential, and military solutions tend to take precedence over diplomatic approaches. Netanyahu’s motives are seen as a combination of personal factors—such as legal challenges and his political legacy—and a genuine belief that Iran represents an existential danger. At the same time, the experience of the Gaza war has shown that key military objectives, such as regime change or long-term security, have not been achieved.
Military operations have had far-reaching humanitarian consequences. Estimates suggest that around six million people in the region have been displaced by Israeli actions: approximately two million in Gaza, about one million in Lebanon, and several million in Iran. This development has been widely criticized as disproportionate. At the same time, a large majority of the Israeli population supports the war, indicating strong public backing for military measures.
The role of the media has also come under scrutiny. Despite formal press freedom, widespread self-censorship is reported. During the Gaza war in particular, information about civilian casualties was reportedly downplayed to avoid unsettling the public. As a result, large segments of the population remained only partially informed about the scale of destruction.
The education system is likewise described as shaping public perception. It is said to instill a strong sense of victimhood and the belief that Israel holds a unique position and must defend itself against hostile forces. These narratives make criticism more difficult and contribute to broad support for state actions, including military conflicts.
Militarily, Israel remains heavily dependent on the United States in any confrontation with Iran. Without American support, a large-scale war would not be feasible. Consequently, the course of the conflict largely depends on decisions made in Washington. While Israel can act more independently in Lebanon, this is far less true in relation to Iran.
The strategy of targeted assassinations of political and military opponents has a long history but has often led to further radicalization rather than stabilization. Historical examples suggest that such measures tend to intensify conflicts over time rather than resolve them.
In Iran, the conflict could accelerate the pursuit of nuclear weapons, as these are seen as a deterrent against future attacks. At the same time, there is a risk of escalation into a prolonged regional or even international conflict, with significant consequences for the global economy and the potential involvement of major powers.
In the long term, a shift in U.S. policy toward Israel is considered likely. Critical voices are growing in both major parties, calling into question the traditionally close support. A decline in American backing could pose a greater strategic challenge for Israel than external military threats.
Within Israel, political and social trends are also moving toward more religious and nationalist positions. This development complicates diplomatic solutions and makes a continuation of conflicts more likely. Under these conditions, lasting regional stability through military means appears unlikely, while diplomatic approaches have so far not been consistently pursued.