Netanyahu, Iran and The ‘Destructive’ Israeli Personality

CrossFireArabia
Analyses
June 8, 2026

By Dr Adnan Naeem

The recent escalation between Israel and Iran suggests that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is currently experiencing one of his most complex and perplexing political moments. The man who has long relied on military force as a tool to resolve conflicts and impose realities now finds himself besieged by outcomes that fall short of his stated objectives and the immense cost borne by the entire region.

In Gaza, after months of war, destruction, and continuous military operations by the Israeli army, fundamental questions remain unanswered: Where is the victory promised to the Israelis? Where are the strategic achievements that justified the continuation of the war? The Gaza battle was transformed from a project for a swift resolution into an open-ended war of attrition, with the political, security, and humanitarian costs increasing daily and rapidly.

As for the northern front (Lebanon), Netanyahu has failed to impose the equations he repeatedly wanted to create. Instead of restoring Israel’s image of deterrence, new realities have emerged confirming that the region does not respond to threats, and that the power balance has become far too complex to be determined by the rhetoric of force or displays of military capability.

At the heart of these shifts, Iran has emerged as a model distinct from the many adversaries Israel has traditionally dealt with. Tehran does not merely declare its right to retaliate; it exercises this right whenever it perceives its interests or sovereignty are threatened. The recent regional confrontations demonstrated that a policy of threats is no longer sufficient to subdue or deter adversaries while military calculations have become far more costly and complex than Netanyahu imagined.

It is to be noted while Netanyahu sometimes speaks of opportunities for negotiation or security and political arrangements, he at the same time continues to generate the conditions for escalation. How can peace be built while the circle of confrontation widens? And how can the world be convinced of the seriousness of the political process when the language of force remains the sole instrument for managing the conflict?

He appears like a cunning fox, claiming to be engaged in negotiations for peace but focusing on security matters rather than the political file. The security file establishes a limited, relative stability, not a lasting one, waiting to reignite conflict in the region, particularly on the Lebanese front.

Netanyahu works on downplaying and delaying the importance of resolving the political issue first. He thus evades political obligations and commitments under international pressure regarding Lebanese rights for instance, most importantly ( is a complete withdrawal, even from the Shebaa Farms, demarcation of borders, including maritime borders, and Lebanese rights to the gas fields off the Lebanese coast – the Karish field).

This contradiction reveals a crisis deeper than a mere disagreement over military tactics; it reflects a personal political predicament facing Netanyahu. He understands – as he approaches the general elections – that a ceasefire could open the door to domestic accountability regarding security and political failures, and could revive questions about his political future, not to mention corruption cases and crises such as his dismantling of the judicial system and the conscription of Haredim. Therefore, it seems the continuation of the tension gives him more room to maneuver than political compromises would.

Within Israel itself, and as the general elections approaches, the gap between Netanyahu and growing segments of society widens. The opposition is gaining strength, protests continue unabated and the families of fallen and wounded soldiers are raising their voices in an unprecedented manner. Meanwhile, criticism is mounting from security and military figures who believe the government lacks a clear vision to resolve the crisis.

Today, Netanyahu’s image resembles that of his missiles: Soaring into the sky, creating a deafening roar, but quickly returning to reality, where difficult questions and stubborn facts await him. Wars may postpone crises, but they do not eliminate them, and escalation may temporarily alter the landscape, but it does not create a lasting victory.

Conversely, the United States appears more inclined toward de-escalation and preventing the region from erupting into a full-blown war. Washington understands its strategic interests require containing the conflict, not expanding it. It prefers pursuing political and security arrangements that reduce the likelihood of a major confrontation. However, this approach clashes with Netanyahu’s desire to keep the region on the brink of conflagration, hoping to alter the facts on the ground or escape the demands of domestic politics.

Between heaven and earth, Netanyahu oscillates between the rhetoric of power and the reality of impotence, between his political ambitions and the limits of what military force can achieve. As for the region, it continues to pay the price for this oscillation, which has so far produced nothing but more tension and instability.

This article, written by Dr Adnan Naeem, an Israeli affairs expert, was published in the Arabic Maannews website and reprinted in crossfirearabia.com

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Analyses

Iran: ‘Strategic Patience’ to ‘Sustained Confrontation’

marwan
June 7, 2026

By Najih Mohammad Ali

In a clear and direct language, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) affirmed that regional “peace and stability will not be achieved unless there is withdrawal from the occupied Lebanese territories.” This stance followed Hezbollah’s Secretary-General’s rejection of the Washington talks, emphasizing his refusal to separate the arenas and the “Dahieh for the North” equation.

This statement expresses a coherent strategic vision that considers regional stability inextricably linked to ending occupations and aggressions. It places the defense of Lebanon, Syria, and the region among Iran’s political and military priorities.

This shift to a strategy of “eternal war”—or continuous confrontation—and reflects a pragmatic and principled decision made by Tehran after decades of pressure and aggression. Iran did not abandon the idea of a settlement in vain; rather, it realized that relying on partial agreements with Washington, which imposes unilateral conditions and disregards the rights of peoples, is no longer a viable option.

The cowardly assassination of Martyr Qassem Soleimani, followed by direct strikes targeting high-ranking Iranian leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, proved that relying solely on “strategic patience” is mistaken for weakness. Therefore, Iran has shifted to a doctrine of active deterrence based on the entire axis of resistance, making any aggression costly for its adversaries.

This transformation was not the result of the absolute dominance of a hardline faction, as Zionist-American narratives and their Arab proxies (and, of course, the Iranian opposition abroad) claim. Rather, it is a natural evolution of the Iranian elite that stood united in the face of external aggression.

After significant losses, the priority of maintaining national and revolutionary cohesion emerged. Defending revolutionary principles—exporting the spirit of resistance and confronting arrogance—has become an essential part of the regime’s identity that has become a source of strength to prevent internal collapse whilst uniting the people behind the leadership in the face of sanctions. Pragmatists and hardliners alike now agree that continued confrontation better protects national interests than concessions that could lead to disintegration.

The leaders of the Iranian regime believe—and I think they are right—that continuing the confrontation will yield greater strategic gains than any fragile peace agreement. History proves that America understands only the language of force and attrition. From Vietnam to Afghanistan, wars of attrition forced Washington to withdraw.

Today, the “Axis of Resistance” is cleverly applying this equation: Linking the arenas to prevent separate deals that would weaken Lebanon, Iraq, or Yemen, and imposes a heavy price on its adversaries. Iranian diplomacy has been transformed into the diplomacy of the field, as General Soleimani envisioned, and is now a flexible tool that buys time and exposes the contradictions of the other side, while maintaining full military readiness.

The American-Israeli strikes have already altered Tehran’s calculations in favor of adopting an offensive-defensive posture. Instead of settling for limited responses, Iran is developing comprehensive deterrent capabilities through its natural allies, who represent the will of the region’s peoples in the face of occupation.

This is a calculated escalation, a precise strategic calculation based on resilience and strategic depth. Within the elite, a balance prevails between caution, fearing losses, and resolve, which sees resistance as the only path to dignity and independence.

Compared to the previous “strategic patience,” the strategy of sustained confrontation has proven effective in preserving battlefield gains and preventing the regional collapse of the resistance axis. It has succeeded in exhausting the enemy and strengthening internal unity, despite economic challenges primarily attributed to unjust sanctions, not Iranian policy.

The most serious risk facing this strategy lies in the possibility of miscalculation by adversaries and their attempts to impose a full-scale war, but Iran has repeatedly demonstrated an exceptional capacity for resilience and adaptation.

We are indeed facing a “simmering cold war,” where there is no false peace imposed by force, nor a total war that destroys everyone. This situation serves Iran and its axis because it maintains the strategic balance, prevents surrender, and opens the door to a comprehensive and just settlement based on withdrawal from occupied territories and respect for the sovereignty of states.

In conclusion, this “perpetual war” relies on the long-term vision of the Iranian character. It is not a whim, but an existential choice imposed by the ongoing aggression against Iran and the peoples of the region.

Iran is defending itself and the dignity of the nation, and affirms that true stability begins with ending aggression, occupation, and foreign interference. This path, despite its difficulties, reinforces Tehran’s position as an indispensable regional power and paves the way for a new balance of power that respects the rights of peoples. The region needs such firm stances to achieve an honorable peace, not surrender.

The author is a researcher in Iranian and regional affairs and this article is reproduced from the Arabic Al Rai Al Youm website and reprinted in crossfirearabia.com.

Analyses

‘Insulting Phone Call’, Beirut, Iran and Changing Dynamics

CrossFireArabia
June 3, 2026

By Abdul Bari Atwan

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demonstrated his ability to effectively redraw the maps and borders of the Middle East when he backed down from striking Beirut’s southern suburb to completely destroying it. He succumbed to the threats and pressure from US President Donald Trump. In this respect here, Iran can be considered to have become a regional superpower not only in the Middle East, the West and Central Asia, but globally.

Trump, who previously threatened to wipe Iran off the map and unleash hell upon it, destroying all its energy and electricity infrastructure, scurried like a frightened rabbit to the phone to call Netanyahu in a “call of insults,” ordering him to immediately halt all plans to bomb Beirut’s southern suburb and withdraw his troops and warplanes en route to the area, just hours before the bombings and destructions where to begin.

***

In a Washington Post interview, Trump completely changed his threatening tone and began pleading for peace with Iran, after extending the unilateral ceasefire by 60 days. More importantly, he expressed his desire for a summit with Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei as soon as an agreement is reached, and confirmed that Mojtaba, whom he had previously claimed was no longer alive, is now involved in the decision-making process regarding war and peace in the current conflict.

The new and effective ‘password’ in the Middle East, reflecting Iran’s “power shift,” is embodied in its thunderous response to the Israeli threat to destroy the southern suburb of Beirut, western Bekaa Valley, and Nabatieh. Iran launched hundreds of missiles and drones to strike deep into occupied Israel, sending a clear message: “Greater Tel Aviv in exchange for the southern suburb.”

The Iranian leadership, backed by a solid popular base, a highly advanced missile and drone industry, a naval fleet, and over 460 kilograms of uranium enriched above 60%—enriched to produce 10 nuclear bombs in a few days—says what it means and acts accordingly. It will not tolerate injustice and is prepared for all eventualities.

There is ample evidence to support this assertion, as demonstrated early Wednesday morning when Iranian missiles and drones struck US military bases in Kuwait and Bahrain in retaliation for attacks on an Iranian oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz and a communications tower on Qeshm Island, both launched from these bases.

The American-Israeli alliance has, since the October War of 1973, grown accustomed to a deeply ingrained official Arab subservience, a failure to respond to any Israeli aggression, and a refusal to reject any American dictates. Most Arab leaders turn the other cheek to Israeli and American slaps, becoming indifferent to the situation. But now, someone has emerged to uproot this system of surrender and usher in a new, truly Islamic era—an era of resistance, where the response is not merely in kind, but in a stronger and more significant way.

Mohsen Rezaei, advisor to Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, summarized this new military, political, and moral upheaval in a statement saying, “America and its president, Trump, should expect a barrage of missiles (hypersonic and cluster warheads) and drones should they renew their aggression against Iran.”

Netanyahu, who craved the limelight and the humiliation of Arabs, and who rubbed his hands with glee at the long line of Arab leaders queuing before his office seeking normalization and the signing of the Abraham Accords, has fallen silent and disappeared from the public eye. He no longer dares to threaten to destroy Iran alone, without America’s participation in the aggression.

The dictates Trump issued just days ago, the shifting balance of power on the ground, and Iran’s threat of retaliation for any aggression against Lebanon have evaporated. The American president, as a New York Times editorial acknowledged, has failed miserably in all his wars since arriving at the White House a year and a half ago—in Iran, Ukraine, and the Gaza Strip—and has not achieved his objectives and has become a laughingstock.

As for the Gulf states – those that normalized relations and/or those that were eager to join the “Abraham Accords” to avoid angering Trump and rejecting his demands – they reached a firm conviction that America is incapable of protecting itself, its bases, and its ships.

The most prominent evidence of this is the destruction of American military bases in their countries, including the US Navy base in Bahrain, and the closure of these bases and Saudi airspace to planes and drones, whilst preventing them from launching attacks on Iran from their territory. They saved the Hajj season, just as they saved themselves and their people from the consequences of the mirage of American power.

***

In conclusion, we sympathize with our Kuwaiti brothers who were injured as a result of an Iranian missile attack on the passenger terminal at Kuwait Airport, whether by mistake or deliberately. However, the blame lies entirely with those who allowed America to use Kuwaiti territory as a launching pad for aggression against Islamic Iran. America possesses three aircraft carriers and more than 300 warships in the Arabian Sea, so why didn’t it use them in this aggression? And why does it insist on using its bases in the Gulf states, thereby endangering millions of their citizens?

Abdul Bari Atwan is the Chief Editor of the Arabic Al Rai Al Youm and his piece has appeared in the English crossfirearabia.com English website.