For more than two decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran has posed a major strategic threat to Israel, particularly due to its nuclear program. Tehran, which has long concealed the extent of its sensitive nuclear activities, remains today on the verge of reaching the critical uranium enrichment threshold that would allow rapid weaponization. This development is fueling serious concerns in both Jerusalem and Washington, but it is Benjamin Netanyahu in particular who, since his first terms in office, has made “neutralizing the Iranian threat” the core of his security doctrine.
A Very Real Nuclear Threat
Since the 2000s, Iran has developed a civilian nuclear capability officially intended for energy production. Yet, successive revelations from the IAEA, leaks from Western and Israeli intelligence services, and persistent ambiguities surrounding underground facilities such as Fordo and Natanz leave little doubt about Tehran’s desire to eventually acquire a nuclear weapons capability. The 2015 Vienna Agreement (JCPOA), negotiated with the major powers, had put this process on hold. But the unilateral withdrawal of the United States in 2018 under Donald Trump had reignited Iran’s nuclear momentum. Today, according to several reports, Iran reportedly has enough enriched uranium to manufacture one or two warheads within a few months, even if weapons deployment remains hypothetical and politically risky for Tehran.
For Israel, a nuclear Iran constitutes an existential casus belli. Iran is one of the only countries to radically challenge the legitimacy of the Jewish state, while actively supporting hostile armed groups through its proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis). An Iranian bomb would therefore not only be a deterrent; it could redefine the regional balance, weaken Israeli military superiority, and open the door to proliferation in the Gulf (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey). It is in this context that the Israeli government’s offensive doctrine, and more specifically Netanyahu’s obsession, is embedded.
Netanyahu’s Strategic Obsession and the Risks of Escalation
Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel several times since the 1990s, has built his international stature on a red line: preventing Iran from acquiring a bomb at all costs. Sabotage of facilities, targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, massive diplomatic pressure on the United States: everything has been attempted. Since October 7, and the war against Hamas—supported and armed by Iran—the risk of direct confrontation between Jerusalem and Tehran has never been higher.
Leaks suggest that the Israeli general staff regularly updates strike plans against Iranian nuclear facilities, with or without American approval. Such action—even preventive and targeted—could lead to a major regional conflagration, involving Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Iraqi Shiite militias. The front could become global.
Trump, Netanyahu, and the american Factor
The attitude of US President Donald Trump, who returned to power after Joe Biden’s failed second term, adds a new layer of unpredictability. While Trump previously unreservedly supported Israel, even recognizing Jerusalem as its capital, his personal relationship with Netanyahu has seriously deteriorated since the last Israeli election and the latter’s public criticism in 2021. Trump has never fully accepted what he perceives as a form of political betrayal.
Today, although generally supportive of a hard line against Iran, Trump may be less inclined to support Netanyahu in a unilateral military adventure. Pragmatic and focused on direct US interests, Trump could, in a typical shift of his style, hold back an uncoordinated Israeli strike, particularly if he deems it harmful to the US economy or likely to result in regional troop losses. Conversely, if Iran were to launch a preemptive or massive attack, Trump could respond with disproportionate force, risking drawing the United States into an all-out conflict.
In this unstable configuration, the game of alliances becomes blurred, and the personal factor between two populist leaders with oversized egos—Trump and Netanyahu—could paradoxically increase the risks of slippage, where cold and calculated diplomacy would be more necessary than ever. The entire region remains suspended in their moods, between strategy, rivalry, and revenge.
