The administrations of Barack Obama and Donald Trump have largely concurred on one point: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been perceived as overly hesitant to take decisive action. In 2014, a senior official from the Obama administration remarked to The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg that Netanyahu was “afraid to initiate conflicts.” Fast forward nine years, and Trump recounted at a campaign rally that Netanyahu had initially agreed to participate in the U.S. strike against Qassem Soleimani, the infamous leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, but ultimately withdrew at the last moment. “I’ll always remember that Bibi Netanyahu let us down,” Trump expressed to his audience shortly after the tragic Hamas attack in 2023.
That was a different time. Evaluations of Netanyahu seem ludicrous now, as Israel engages in its second conflict with Iran, having dismantled the regime’s proxy forces—Hamas and Hezbollah—and eliminated its top leader. However, Netanyahu’s American detractors accurately depicted his actions up until October 7, 2023. For many years, the Israeli leader made bold statements while wielding minimal power. Although he issued numerous warnings regarding Iran’s nuclear aspirations—in Israel, the U.S. Congress, and the United Nations—Netanyahu failed to substantiate his aggressive rhetoric with tangible measures.
Perceptions of Netanyahu’s Leadership
That is, until 2024. The Netanyahu who is now leading a perilous offensive against Tehran is not the same individual who ruled Israel for almost two decades before. Moreover, the nation he governs has also transformed significantly.
Eliot A. Cohen: America’s essential partner
Prior to this significant change, Netanyahu’s tenure as prime minister was founded on a strategy of avoiding conflict. This approach resonated with a cautious electorate. During his time in office, Israeli voters who preferred the existing situation could feel secure knowing their leader was unlikely to disturb it.
Historical Hesitations in Action
“Contrary to his public persona, Netanyahu is not a warmonger,” wrote Anshel Pfeffer, a biographer and one of the prime minister’s left-leaning critics, in 2018. “He is the most cautious of Israeli leaders, reluctant to engage in war or pursue peace.” At that time, Pfeffer accurately foresaw that Israel would refrain from going to war with Iran, even with a supportive Trump administration backing it.
Netanyahu exhibited caution both by nature and through his experiences. His elder brother, Yoni, lost his life during a hostage-rescue operation in 1976. As the head of the parliamentary opposition, Netanyahu witnessed a devastating conflict in Lebanon tarnish the reputation of Ehud Olmert, his center-left predecessor in the role of prime minister. A skilled communicator adept at managing his public image, Netanyahu recognized that wars are unpredictable and cannot be easily orchestrated. Instead of confronting Tehran directly, he shifted the battle into the shadows, publicly advocating for global sanctions while discreetly launching a covert initiative to undermine Iran’s nuclear ambitions from within.
This inclination towards containment rather than open warfare was not limited to Iran; it also extended to the neighboring territory. For years, Netanyahu resisted pressure from within his own right-wing coalition to invade Gaza and overthrow its militant leadership. In his memoir published in 2022, Netanyahu expressed pride in having dismissed these calls for military action. “Ending such operations is far more challenging than initiating them,” he remarked. “The public consistently expects the government to persist in the fight and ‘flatten Gaza,’ assuming that sufficient punishment would lead to the downfall of the Hamas regime. However, that would only occur if we deployed the army. The toll would be significant: hundreds of Israeli casualties and thousands on the Palestinian side. Did I truly want to commit the IDF to Gaza for years while we faced threats from Iran and a potential Syrian front? The answer was a definitive no.” Instead, Netanyahu chose to weaken Hamas through targeted airstrikes and sought to secure peace by channeling millions of dollars from Qatar to the group.
Trump’s Critique of Netanyahu
The massacre by Hamas on October 7—whose horrific acts were streamed live by the attackers and etched into the Israeli psyche—shattered and undermined this strategy. With Israel’s border regions devastated and many of its citizens taken captive, the electorate could no longer tolerate their leader’s passivity, which now appeared to be a grave mistake. An Israeli populace that had chosen Netanyahu to safeguard their security now felt deeply vulnerable and called for significant measures. Merely responding to the assault was insufficient; the administration had to guarantee that similar incidents would never occur again by addressing threats at their origin.
Since 2014, Netanyahu had refrained from deploying Israeli ground forces into Gaza. However, following the events of October 7, that reluctance became untenable. He launched the very military operation in Gaza that he had previously cautioned against. This devastating and frequently tumultuous conflict resulted in more casualties among Israelis and Palestinians than any prior war, ravaged large areas of the enclave, bolstered Israel’s extremists who aimed to occupy the land, and significantly diminished Israel’s reputation on the global stage.
Initially, Netanyahu instinctively hesitated to escalate the conflict. Following the events of October 7, when his defense minister and other security leaders advocated for Israel to target not only Hamas but also Hezbollah, Netanyahu held back. At that moment, the Lebanese militia was launching rockets into Israel in support of Hamas, yet it was arguably the most formidable nonstate military force globally, and a wary Netanyahu was reluctant to confront it.
Impact of Recent Events
Similar to the situation in Gaza, the Iranian ally ultimately compelled Netanyahu to act. For over 11 months, Hezbollah relentlessly bombarded northern Israel, decimating communities and necessitating the evacuation of nearly 70,000 residents. This destruction and displacement exerted immense pressure on Israel’s social fabric—and increasingly burdened its leader. Ultimately, in September 2024, following a series of retaliatory strikes, Netanyahu initiated a comprehensive offensive against Hezbollah, utilizing explosive devices and advanced munitions. Then, unexpectedly, everything unfolded as intended.
The leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, was killed alongside almost his entire command structure. This left Hezbollah in ruins, forcing them to agree to a cease-fire on Israel’s conditions. With his enforcers gone, Syria’s pro-Iranian leader, Bashar al-Assad, soon met a similar fate. What began as total war transformed into a near-total victory for Israel. Concurrently, another conflict further strengthened Netanyahu’s position. Following Israel’s attack on a consular annex in Syria and the assassination of Nasrallah, Iran retaliated with hundreds of missiles and drones, marking the largest assault of its kind in history. However, Israel not only successfully intercepted most of these attacks but also managed to breach and neutralize some of Iran’s most critical air defense systems.
Dennis Ross: Yitzhak Rabin understood what Netanyahu fails to grasp
Following each successful escalation, Netanyahu’s readiness to employ force to resolve Israel’s grievances grew. This increasing assurance peaked during the 12-day conflict last June, where Israel secured air superiority over Iran, targeted its nuclear facilities, and eliminated a significant portion of the nation’s military and intelligence leadership, all while sustaining no fatalities among its troops. Initially, Israeli military strategists anticipated over 400 casualties on the home front due to Iranian missile and drone strikes; ultimately, the toll was just 28.
Critics of Israel frequently emphasize that the radicalization of Palestinians stems more from ongoing Israeli occupation, violence, and dispossession than from deep-seated ideology. However, this reasoning applies in both directions. Netanyahu and the Israeli populace would likely not have tolerated such severe military measures had they not endured the unimaginable tragedies of October 7, along with the relentless barrage of rockets from Hezbollah and missiles from Iran.
This cycle has culminated in Netanyahu’s boldest and most significant wager yet. Shedding his previous caution, he has staked his political future—and that of his nation—on Israel’s capacity to tackle not just the Iranian regime but also its allies in Hezbollah and the Houthis, all while navigating the unpredictable Trump, who could declare a hasty victory and withdraw from the scene at any time. The success of this strategy remains uncertain, and one should be wary of anyone who claims otherwise. However, it is evident that the Israel and Netanyahu of October 6, 2023, are irretrievably lost.
