Netanyahu could teach Trump a thing (or two) about nerves of steel

For decades, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, has cultivated a reputation as a cautious, calculating leader—often described as risk-averse, prioritizing political survival over audacious moves.

His tenure has been marked by strategic restraint, exemplified by unconventional decisions like reportedly allowing suitcases of Qatari cash to flow to Hamas in Gaza, a move aimed at maintaining a fragile status quo and preventing escalation.

Yet, he appears to have undergone a dramatic transformation, launching an unprecedented military offensive against Iran’s nuclear facilities, dubbed Operation Rising Lion.

This bold strike, targeting nuclear sites, air defenses, and senior Iranian military and scientific figures, signals a seismic shift in his approach. Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump, known for his brash rhetoric and deal-making bravado, finds himself uncharacteristically hesitant, wavering on whether to commit American forces to Israel’s campaign to neutralize Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This contrast—Netanyahu’s newfound audacity and Trump’s indecision—offers a fascinating lens into the evolving dynamics of Middle Eastern geopolitics, the Iran conflict, and the complex relationship between these two leaders.

Netanyahu’s Risk-Averse Past: Cash for Calm

Netanyahu’s earlier approach to regional threats often leaned on pragmatism over confrontation. His handling of Hamas, the Palestinian militant group controlling Gaza, is a prime example. Posts on X and reports from Israeli media, such as a statement from Netanyahu’s office referenced in May 2025, confirm that Israel facilitated Qatari cash transfers to Hamas, a policy that was designed to keep Gaza stable and avoid a full-scale war that could destabilize his coalition or invite international backlash. This strategy, while controversial, reflected Netanyahu’s preference for containment over escalation, ensuring Hamas remained a manageable threat rather than an existential one.

This risk-averse streak extended to Iran, Israel’s archenemy. For decades, Netanyahu has sounded the alarm about Iran’s nuclear program, famously brandishing a cartoon bomb at the United Nations in 2012 to dramatize the threat. Yet, despite his rhetoric, he repeatedly held back from direct military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, constrained by domestic opposition, skeptical military advisors, and resistance from U.S. presidents, including Barack Obama and even Trump during his first term. His warnings were persistent, but his actions were cautious, shaped by the fear of triggering retaliatory strikes from Iran’s proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, or entangling Israel in a broader regional war.

Operation Rising Lion: A New Netanyahu Emerges

The Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023, which killed 1,139 Israelis and exposed significant security lapses under Netanyahu’s watch, appears to have been a turning point. The attack shattered public confidence in his leadership, with polls indicating widespread blame for the failure to prevent it. Facing domestic unrest, corruption charges, and a fractious coalition, Netanyahu’s political survival hinged on reasserting his security credentials. The subsequent wars in Gaza and Lebanon, which decimated Hamas and Hezbollah, weakened Iran’s regional “axis of resistance” and emboldened Israel to take on the “head of the octopus”—Iran itself.

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, a meticulously planned assault on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, air defenses, and key personnel. The operation targeted sites like Natanz, killed senior figures such as IRGC commander Hossein Salami and nuclear scientists, and aimed to cripple Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon.

Netanyahu called the strikes a necessary response to an “existential threat,” invoking Holocaust imagery to justify the campaign’s intensity. Unlike his past restraint, this move was a high-stakes gamble, risking Iranian retaliation and regional escalation. Analysts like Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. State Department official, note that Netanyahu has shifted from a “risk-averse” leader to one “risk-ready,” comfortable projecting Israel as a regional hegemon.

Several factors enabled this pivot. Iran’s weakened state—its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah crippled, its ally Bashar al-Assad ousted in Syria, and its air defenses degraded by prior Israeli strikes—created a rare window of opportunity. Trump’s re-election in 2024, coupled with his administration’s initial reluctance to restrain Israel, provided tacit approval, if not a “green light.” Domestically, the strikes have unified a divided Israel, with even critics like Yair Golan and Avigdor Lieberman rallying behind the operation. Netanyahu’s coalition, teetering on collapse over issues like ultra-Orthodox draft exemptions, has been helped along by this “rally-around-the-flag” effect.

Yet, the operation carries immense risks. The fortified Fordow nuclear facility, buried deep under a mountain, remains beyond Israel’s reach without U.S.-provided bunker-buster bombs. Iran’s potential withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or expulsion of IAEA inspectors could accelerate its nuclear ambitions in secret, potentially hastening the very outcome Netanyahu seeks to prevent. Moreover, his call for regime change in Iran, urging Iranians to overthrow their “oppressive” rulers, may overreach, with little evidence of imminent internal collapse.

Trump’s Dithering: The Dealmaker’s Dilemma

In stark contrast, Donald Trump’s response to the Iran conflict has been marked by indecision, a departure from his typically decisive persona. Trump entered his second term pledging to broker a nuclear deal with Iran, aiming to curb its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. His administration initiated talks with Tehran in April 2025, catching Netanyahu off guard during a White House visit. Trump’s strategy was to leverage Iran’s weakened position, its economy battered by sanctions and its proxies diminished, to extract concessions, such as halting uranium enrichment.

However, Netanyahu’s unilateral strike on June 13 disrupted these negotiations, with Iran canceling a planned round of talks in Oman. Trump’s public statements reflect a conflicted stance: he has warned Iran against retaliation, promising “levels never seen before” of U.S. military response, while urging de-escalation and a return to diplomacy. Reports suggest he vetoed an Israeli proposal to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, wary of escalating the conflict. Yet, by June 17, Trump was reportedly considering deploying U.S. aircraft to refuel Israeli jets or even strike Fordow with American bunker-busters, a potential reversal from his earlier opposition to military involvement.

This oscillation reflects Trump’s broader foreign policy tension: his desire to be a “peacemaker” and avoid “forever wars” clashes with pressure from Netanyahu and hawkish Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham, who urge U.S. participation to “finish the job.” Trump’s reluctance stems from Gulf allies’ concerns about regional stability and his own skepticism of open-ended military commitments. Critics argue that his ad-hoc decision-making style, described by former aide John Bolton as driven by “instincts and reactions” rather than strategy, has allowed Netanyahu to outmaneuver him, exploiting Trump’s indecision to advance Israel’s agenda.

The Nuclear Stakes: A Global Flashpoint

Netanyahu’s strike has upended the global nuclear order. Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful, a claim supported by U.S. intelligence assessments that Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized weaponization since 2003. However, the IAEA’s June 2025 censure of Iran for non-compliance and its stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium fueled Israel’s rationale for action. The attack’s success in damaging Natanz and eliminating key scientists is undeniable, but its long-term efficacy is questionable. Iran may now double down, learning the “North Korea lesson”: nuclear weapons deter aggression, as seen in the fates of Libya and Ukraine, which abandoned their programs and suffered invasion or collapse.

Trump’s hesitation risks ceding the initiative to Netanyahu, potentially drawing the U.S. into a conflict it sought to avoid. If Iran retaliates, its initial strikes on Israel killed 13, including three children, pressure could mount for U.S. involvement, especially if American assets are targeted. Conversely, a failure to act could embolden Iran to accelerate its nuclear program, undermining Trump’s diplomatic ambitions.

As the region teeters on the brink, the world watches whether Netanyahu’s gamble will secure Israel’s safety or unleash a nuclear tinderbox and whether Trump’s dithering will define his legacy as a peacemaker or a bystander in a historic confrontation.