ANALYSIS! Netanyahu’s Masterstroke: How Israel Kept Trump Locked on Iran While the World Bled
The skies over Iran lit up on February 28, 2026, as American bombers joined Israeli warplanes in coordinated strikes on Iranian military and nuclear facilities.
The Conscience NG‘s review of public statements by American, Israeli and Iranian leaders, alongside military developments and global economic data, suggests the conflict extends beyond missiles and diplomacy.
At its heart lies a strategic question that has divided policymakers and geopolitical analysts alike: Has Benjamin Netanyahu succeeded in making Iran America’s enduring Middle East priority while the global community bears the economic and humanitarian consequences?
How It Started?
What began as a campaign to cripple Tehran’s military capability quickly evolved into one of the most consequential geopolitical confrontations in recent history.
Five months later, missiles were still flying, global oil markets remained volatile, commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz faced unprecedented uncertainty, and Washington found itself more deeply entangled in a conflict that many analysts say has long aligned with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategic objectives.
For decades, Netanyahu has argued that Iran—not Hamas, Hezbollah or any other regional actor—poses the greatest existential threat to Israel.
He repeatedly urged successive American administrations to adopt a tougher posture towards Tehran, warning that a nuclear-capable Iran would threaten not only Israel but the wider international order.
That campaign has increasingly shaped American policy. While President Donald Trump initially sought negotiations, telling reporters after meeting Netanyahu on February 11, 2026, that his preference remained “negotiations with Iran” if a deal could be reached, diplomacy steadily gave way to military confrontation after talks faltered.
Once the war escalated, the rhetoric hardened dramatically.
“I think the war is very complete,” Trump declared in a March 9 interview, claiming Iran had effectively lost its navy, air force and much of its missile capability. Yet the conflict refused to end.
Weeks later, Washington’s attention shifted from destroying military targets to securing the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most strategically important energy corridor.
The waterway carries roughly 20 per cent of global oil consumption and about one-fifth of the world’s liquefied natural gas trade. Every threat to close or disrupt the Strait reverberated through international markets.
Tanker insurance premiums surged, freight costs climbed and governments from Asia to Europe scrambled to protect energy supplies. Even countries with no direct role in the conflict felt the consequences through higher fuel prices and renewed inflationary pressures.
Trump’s warnings reflected that growing concern. On July 22, he declared that every Iranian attack on commercial shipping in the Strait would trigger American strikes against Iranian infrastructure, signalling that the conflict had expanded beyond Israel’s security into the protection of global commerce.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, maintained that Israel’s campaign was fundamentally about survival. Following extensive military operations, he argued that the damage inflicted on Iran’s military and Revolutionary Guard-linked economy would take years to repair, insisting Israel could not allow Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons.
Iran viewed events very differently. Its leaders accused Washington of becoming an active participant in what they described as Israeli aggression, insisting they were defending national sovereignty while warning that continued attacks would provoke retaliation against American interests across the region.
Whether Netanyahu deliberately drove a wedge between Washington and Tehran remains the subject of intense debate.
Supporters argue the United States responded primarily to Iran’s missile programme, uranium enrichment and regional proxy network—not Israeli persuasion.
Indeed, Reuters reported in May that Netanyahu privately acknowledged Israel had only limited influence over Trump’s decisions as Washington simultaneously pursued negotiations with Tehran.
Critics, however, contend that Netanyahu achieved something equally significant: ensuring Iran remained at the centre of American strategic thinking.
By consistently portraying Tehran as the defining security challenge in the Middle East, they argue, Israel succeeded in tying its own security priorities closely to those of its most powerful ally.
Ironically, the prolonged conflict has also exposed differences between Washington and Jerusalem. While Trump has periodically expressed interest in negotiated settlements and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, Netanyahu has generally favoured sustaining military pressure until Israel believes the Iranian threat has been fundamentally degraded.
The result is a conflict whose consequences now extend far beyond the Middle East. Oil markets, maritime trade, inflation, defence spending and global diplomacy have all been reshaped by a war initially framed as a response to Iran’s military ambitions.
Whether history ultimately concludes that Netanyahu successfully drew America into Israel’s long confrontation with Iran—or merely capitalised on strategic circumstances already unfolding—one fact is increasingly difficult to dispute: few leaders have influenced the regional security agenda as profoundly as Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, and the aftershocks continue to be felt from Washington to Tehran, and from the Strait of Hormuz to economies around the world.
