Netanyahu Exaggerated Iran Threat, Paved Way for Wars, Study Claims

A study by the Mada al-Carmel social studies center asserts that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has spent over three decades exaggerating the Iranian nuclear threat, framing it as an existential danger to Israel. This narrative, according to researcher Mohannad Mustafa in his study "Don Quixote and Iran: The False Prophecy Fulfills Itself Twice," bolstered Netanyahu's political image as a leader preventing a repeat of the Holocaust. The study argues Netanyahu's policies not only confronted Iran's nuclear program but also created conditions that exacerbated the threat, which he then used to justify two wars against Iran in June 2025 and February 2026.

Netanyahu's political discourse, the study claims, heavily relied on presenting himself as the savior of the Jewish people from a new historical catastrophe, with Iran's nuclear program at the center. He warned in a 1993 article that Iran would possess nuclear weapons by 1999, urging international action. Despite these predictions not materializing on his timeline, he continued to portray the program as an imminent threat. The study likens Netanyahu's confrontation with Iran to a personal and political battle, more about securing his historical legacy than a realistic assessment of the threat.

The study outlines three main frameworks Netanyahu used to shape the perception of Iran: comparing it to Nazi Germany, portraying its regime as extremist Islam, and depicting it as the primary sponsor of international terrorism. He linked Iran's nuclear program to the Holocaust, leveraging Jewish historical memory to warn against complacency. This rhetoric was evident in his UN addresses and his 2015 speech to the US Congress opposing the Iran nuclear deal. He also connected Iran to militant Islamist groups, capitalizing on Western fears post-9/11 and the rise of ISIS, framing the confrontation as part of a broader battle for Western security.

The study highlights Netanyahu's role in pushing then-US President Donald Trump to withdraw from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal in 2018, despite reservations from within Israel's security establishment. The deal had imposed restrictions on Iran's enriched uranium stockpiles, enrichment levels, and centrifuge development. Israeli researcher Avner Cohen is cited, calling Netanyahu's gamble on sanctions and military threats being more effective than the deal a failed and irresponsible risk. The study also questions the evidence Israel presented from Iran's nuclear archives in 2018, noting the documents predated the deal and didn't prove violations at the time of disclosure. Mustafa concludes that abandoning the deal weakened international containment and oversight.

The study links the rhetoric preceding the two wars against Iran to Netanyahu's narrative of an existential threat. The first war, starting June 13, 2025, and lasting 12 days, initially did not aim for regime change, though this objective later appeared in Netanyahu's statements. The researcher suggests this operation aimed to weaken the regime and create internal conditions for its potential fall without a clear regime-change strategy. The second war, a joint US-Israeli operation in February 2026, is seen as Netanyahu's continued reliance on military force for strategic transformation in Iran, including weakening or toppling the regime.

Ultimately, the study concludes that the wars demonstrated Israel's limited ability to single-handedly destroy Iran's nuclear program, highlighting its dependence on US capabilities. Mustafa posits that Netanyahu made confronting Iran central to his political identity, presenting himself as the leader who would prevent another Holocaust and war as the necessary means. The paradox, according to the study, is that while the threat Netanyahu warned of did not materialize as predicted, his policies arguably fostered conditions that made the danger more complex. The study suggests Netanyahu believed US involvement in the second war could help him achieve regime change and solidify his historical standing, potentially overshadowing criticism after the October 7, 2023 attack. However, the continued existence of the Iranian regime and its nuclear capabilities, the study argues, diminished the prospects for this narrative. The study questions Netanyahu's claims of destroying Iran's nuclear program, viewing them as attempts to portray the wars as strategic successes and fulfill his pledge to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.