Netanyahu’s desperate gamble: Striking Iran to escape the noose?

After nearly two years of a brutal war in Gaza, Netanyahu’s political edifice appears to be crumbling. His declared objective of eliminating Hamas remains elusive, and the fate of Israeli hostages hangs precariously in the balance. Public confidence has plummeted, and the military is facing unprecedented losses amid profound political and social polarization. For many seasoned observers, Netanyahu’s military strike against Iran last week is less about strategic imperatives and more about a frantic bid for political survival.

The nuclear tightrope and diplomatic stalemate

At the heart of this escalating crisis lies Iran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program. Since the unilateral US withdrawal in 2018 from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Tehran has dramatically accelerated its uranium enrichment. It now boasts a stockpile of approximately 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, a chillingly short technical leap from weapons-grade material.

Efforts to resolve the impasse proved futile. Recent indirect U.S.-Iran talks, mediated in Muscat and Rome, have collapsed, primarily stalling over Washington’s unyielding demand for Iran to halt domestic enrichment. Tehran, asserting its sovereign right to peaceful nuclear energy, refuses to cede this point. President Trump, whose administration had spearheaded the JCPOA withdrawal, has now doubled down, declaring with characteristic vehemence that he will “never allow Iran to enrich uranium on its soil.” The chasm between Iran and the US appears insurmountable.

IAEA censure and Tehran’s defiance      

Tensions intensified further on June 12 when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed a resolution condemning Iran for failing to comply with its nuclear safeguards obligations for the first time in 20 years. Tehran’s response was swift and defiant: a public announcement of a new enrichment site with advanced sixth-generation centrifuges. Member states are now preparing to elevate the IAEA resolution to the UN Security Council, where the specter of severe sanctions looms, threatening to disrupt an already volatile situation.

The echo of mutual threats and red lines

Three days after what Israeli officials privately acknowledge was a tactical, rather than crippling, airstrike on Iranian nuclear and military facilities, the region remains on tenterhooks. The Israeli military campaign fell short of neutralizing Iran’s most sensitive, deeply buried, and heavily fortified nuclear sites in one massive blow. Though Israeli stealth F-35 jets penetrate Iranian airspace unchallenged, the strike is not a strategic knockout blow.

What it may have definitively triggered, however, is a far more perilous escalation. Iran’s retaliation was swift and unprecedented: hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones rained down on Israeli cities and military bases, with Tehran threatening further, more severe retaliation. Crucially, Iranian military intelligence now claims to have precisely pinpointed secret Israeli nuclear sites, vowing to target them in any further escalation. “These places will go up in flames,” an Iranian official reportedly warned IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi. While the world largely accepts Israel as a de facto, albeit undeclared, nuclear power, Iran’s message is now chillingly clear: its retaliatory reach extends to Israel’s own concealed atomic arsenal.

 The US dilemma: A quagmire awaiting?

Despite President Trump’s fiery rhetoric, the Pentagon remains visibly cautious. US military leaders harbor profound anxieties that any direct American strike on Iran would inevitably ignite a wider regional conflagration: Hezbollah and Iraqi militias unleashing their arsenals on Israel, devastating retaliatory attacks against US forces across the Middle East, crippling disruptions to global oil supplies, and a surge in terrorism. The consequences of a war with Tehran are unfathomable and will drag the entire region into endless chaos. As one former CENTCOM commander soberly warned, “This is a war you don’t start unless you’re ready for it to last years.”

Yet, Washington has pointedly not ruled out military action. The head of US Central Command recently stated the American military is “ready to strike Iran, pending presidential approval.” Any such monumental undertaking would necessitate a massive US military mobilization – a deployment of aircraft carriers, long-range bombers, and advanced missile systems, potentially involving key allies like Britain and France. Such an escalation carries the chilling risk of drawing in other major powers, including Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, or even China, into a global proxy conflict.

Regional fallout and the widening vortex

Iran’s formidable network of proxies – from Hezbollah in Lebanon to various Iraqi militias – now stands poised to enter the fray with full force. While Israel has achieved success in degrading these groups, others remain formidably defiant. The Houthis in Yemen, for instance, continue lobbing ballistic missiles, disrupting Israeli air traffic, vowing they will not stop unless the war in Gaza ceases. The US, after initial engagement against Houthi attacks on shipping, has reportedly conveyed to the group a tacit understanding: “As long as you don’t target us, we won’t stop you.” A broader regional war, once a hypothetical nightmare, is now unfolding in dangerous, incremental stages before the world’s eyes.

Strategic folly or political lifeline?

A joint full-scale US-Israeli strike on Iran offers no guarantee of success, neither militarily nor politically. Indeed, it could spectacularly backfire, risk allowing it to metastasize into the most devastating war the Middle East has seen in a long time. History demonstrates that foreign attacks often unify domestic support for embattled governments, even those facing internal dissent. Israel’s stated ultimate objective may extend beyond merely halting Iran’s nuclear and missile programs; it appears to be the dismantling of the Islamic Republic itself, a regime that has defied predictions of collapse since 1979. But such grand ambitions carry profoundly dangerous and unpredictable consequences. Before the Israeli strike, prominent US analysts warned that Prime Minister Netanyahu would fully expect President Trump to “pull his chestnut from the fire”—effectively drawing America into a conflict that Netanyahu initiated primarily to salvage his political career. As these perilous events continue to unfold, one chilling reality has now become abundantly clear: Benjamin Netanyahu needs this war far more than the world does.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.