The column argues that Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump both lost the war they set out to shape, while Iran ended up in a stronger position. It says Trump was beaten by Iran and by Netanyahu, and Netanyahu was beaten by Iran and then by Trump, after the U.S. entered what the writer calls “Netanyahu’s war.”
According to the piece, Netanyahu sold Trump the idea that Iran, like “Samson,” could be brought down by striking its leadership and economy. Instead, the article says, Iran did not collapse, its population did not rise up, and Tehran proved more resilient than Israeli assessments expected. The writer says Iran came out with international recognition it had not enjoyed since 1979, and that an MOU, as described in the article, brings it back to the table as a regional power and removes sanctions.
The article frames the damage to Netanyahu as both strategic and personal, arguing that after three decades of diplomacy he had found a U.S. president Israel did not need to persuade, but that this same president now becomes a hostile and damaging figure for Israel. It cites Trump’s record of recognizing Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, normalizing ties with Gulf states, protecting Israeli skies, and sending the “largest army in the world” into what the writer calls an unnecessary war.
The piece ends by posing two questions after the dust settles, one American and one Israeli. The American question is whether military power alone can win when geography and facts limit force, and the Israeli question is who will be blamed if the sanctions-based strategy against Iran has failed. It says the answer to the Israeli question will come in the autumn, and if Netanyahu asks whether he is a loser, the writer hopes voters will answer yes at the ballot box.
