Stephanie Joyce
1. Introduction
– A Shared Crisis, A Convenient War
On the surface, it looked like a targeted operation to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But behind the scenes, this joint U.S.-Israel strike has all the hallmarks of a desperate political gambit by two embattled leaders.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, is currently facing prosecution for war crimes at the International Criminal Court, a charge levied by over 100 nations in response to his government’s military campaign in Gaza.
Donald Trump, facing renewed impeachment threats, sinking approval ratings, and a collapsing international image, needed a strongman headline to change the story.
Together, they executed a “surgical strike” on Iranian nuclear facilities—despite recent IAEA reports (June 20) finding no active weapons-grade uranium and affirming Iran’s ongoing compliance with the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty)—a treaty Israel itself refuses to sign.
2. Netanyahu’s Gambit
– Political Reset via Existential Fear
For Netanyahu, this was not about diplomacy or disarmament. It was about reasserting dominance, both regionally and at home.
His decades-long rhetoric that “Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon” laid the ideological groundwork.
But the timing? It was perfectly convenient for a leader staring down criminal charges and growing domestic unrest.
By reframing Iran as an imminent threat, he consolidated a fractured political base and rebranded himself from defendant to defender.
As Israeli historian Avi Shlaim and others have pointed out, this hypocrisy is glaring: Iran is monitored, signed onto the NPT, and has no nuclear warheads. Israel refuses inspections, has nuclear weapons, and enjoys U.S. protection.
3. Trump’s Alignment
– Image Boost, Constitutional Crisis
Trump’s decision to join the strike was likely made less in consultation with intelligence agencies, and more in consultation with poll numbers.
He’s currently the most unpopular U.S. president this early in a term. He was uninvited from key global summits, and his own Cabinet faces infighting.
Millions joined last week’s “No Kings” March—a rebuke of authoritarianism and foreign entanglements.
Trump has been vocal in his opposition to “forever wars”—as recently as Fall 2024. But now, under pressure, he’s reversed course.
Even his own loyalists have questioned this strike:
Tulsi Gabbard, a key Trump foreign policy advisor, warned against “falling into the trap of escalation.”
Marjorie Taylor Greene, a staunch MAGA supporter, wrote: “There would not be bombs falling on the people of Israel if Netanyahu had not dropped bombs on the people of Iran first… This is not our fight.”
Steve Bannon, Trump’s former strategist, said this weekend that Trump “has some explaining to do.”
4. Strategic Trade-Off
– Delay vs. Escalation Risk
Was it a successful mission militarily? Perhaps. But it’s already clear that this was not about regime change, as Trump allies rushed to clarify.
Trump supporter Matt Gaetz compared the move to the 2020 Soleimani strike, calling it “one and done.”
But within 24 hours, even he admitted: “Just remember: every regime change war is popular at the start. But the historical trajectory isn’t good.”
The strike may delay Iran’s nuclear development—but it risks igniting retaliation, destabilizing the region, and alienating global allies. The precedent of acting unilaterally—especially based on questionable intelligence—has proven disastrous in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
5. Public Reaction
– Divided, Suspicious, and Alert
According to a Washington Post–SSRS poll conducted the day before the bombing:
45% of Americans opposed airstrikes in Iran
25% supported them
30% were unsure
That’s hardly a national mandate. The political class, too, is split:
Republicans broadly back the move, citing Trump’s strength.
Democrats—and even some Republicans—are raising legal alarms, questioning whether Trump violated the War Powers Act.
Calls for impeachment have escalated over the lack of congressional approval.
The administration failed to brief Democratic leaders in advance, a move described as “an abuse of executive authority” by lawmakers across the aisle.
6. Conclusion
– Political Firestorm Disguised as Defense
This strike was marketed as a “surgical act of defense.” But the deeper truth is clear:
It was a desperate play by two wounded strongmen who needed a war to avoid losing power.
Netanyahu needed to erase headlines of ICC prosecution and Gaza atrocities.
Trump needed to counteract growing public rejection, internal fractures, and legal threats.
In their union, they reignited a conflict that may:
Escalate into a wider war,
Further divide the U.S. Congress,
And backfire against both men if retaliation, legal blowback, or popular resistance surges in response.
This was never just about nukes. It was about power preservation—and the world may pay the price.
1. Introduction
– A Shared Crisis, A Convenient War
On the surface, it looked like a targeted operation to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But behind the scenes, this joint U.S.-Israel strike has all the hallmarks of a desperate political gambit by two embattled leaders.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, is currently facing prosecution for war crimes at the International Criminal Court, a charge levied by over 100 nations in response to his government’s military campaign in Gaza.
Donald Trump, facing renewed impeachment threats, sinking approval ratings, and a collapsing international image, needed a strongman headline to change the story.
Together, they executed a “surgical strike” on Iranian nuclear facilities—despite recent IAEA reports (June 20) finding no active weapons-grade uranium and affirming Iran’s ongoing compliance with the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty)—a treaty Israel itself refuses to sign.
2. Netanyahu’s Gambit
– Political Reset via Existential Fear
For Netanyahu, this was not about diplomacy or disarmament. It was about reasserting dominance, both regionally and at home.
His decades-long rhetoric that “Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon” laid the ideological groundwork.
But the timing? It was perfectly convenient for a leader staring down criminal charges and growing domestic unrest.
By reframing Iran as an imminent threat, he consolidated a fractured political base and rebranded himself from defendant to defender.
As Israeli historian Avi Shlaim and others have pointed out, this hypocrisy is glaring: Iran is monitored, signed onto the NPT, and has no nuclear warheads. Israel refuses inspections, has nuclear weapons, and enjoys U.S. protection.
3. Trump’s Alignment
– Image Boost, Constitutional Crisis
Trump’s decision to join the strike was likely made less in consultation with intelligence agencies, and more in consultation with poll numbers.
He’s currently the most unpopular U.S. president this early in a term. He was uninvited from key global summits, and his own Cabinet faces infighting.
Millions joined last week’s “No Kings” March—a rebuke of authoritarianism and foreign entanglements.
Trump has been vocal in his opposition to “forever wars”—as recently as Fall 2024. But now, under pressure, he’s reversed course.
Even his own loyalists have questioned this strike:
Tulsi Gabbard, a key Trump foreign policy advisor, warned against “falling into the trap of escalation.”
Marjorie Taylor Greene, a staunch MAGA supporter, wrote: “There would not be bombs falling on the people of Israel if Netanyahu had not dropped bombs on the people of Iran first… This is not our fight.”
Steve Bannon, Trump’s former strategist, said this weekend that Trump “has some explaining to do.”
4. Strategic Trade-Off
– Delay vs. Escalation Risk
Was it a successful mission militarily? Perhaps. But it’s already clear that this was not about regime change, as Trump allies rushed to clarify.
Trump supporter Matt Gaetz compared the move to the 2020 Soleimani strike, calling it “one and done.”
But within 24 hours, even he admitted: “Just remember: every regime change war is popular at the start. But the historical trajectory isn’t good.”
The strike may delay Iran’s nuclear development—but it risks igniting retaliation, destabilizing the region, and alienating global allies. The precedent of acting unilaterally—especially based on questionable intelligence—has proven disastrous in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
5. Public Reaction
– Divided, Suspicious, and Alert
According to a Washington Post–SSRS poll conducted the day before the bombing:
45% of Americans opposed airstrikes in Iran
25% supported them
30% were unsure
That’s hardly a national mandate. The political class, too, is split:
Republicans broadly back the move, citing Trump’s strength.
Democrats—and even some Republicans—are raising legal alarms, questioning whether Trump violated the War Powers Act.
Calls for impeachment have escalated over the lack of congressional approval.
The administration failed to brief Democratic leaders in advance, a move described as “an abuse of executive authority” by lawmakers across the aisle.
6. Conclusion
– Political Firestorm Disguised as Defense
This strike was marketed as a “surgical act of defense.” But the deeper truth is clear:
It was a desperate play by two wounded strongmen who needed a war to avoid losing power.
Netanyahu needed to erase headlines of ICC prosecution and Gaza atrocities.
Trump needed to counteract growing public rejection, internal fractures, and legal threats.
In their union, they reignited a conflict that may:
Escalate into a wider war,
Further divide the U.S. Congress,
And backfire against both men if retaliation, legal blowback, or popular resistance surges in response.
This was never just about nukes. It was about power preservation—and the world may pay the price.
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings