For almost four decades, Benjamin Netanyahu has defined his politics by his singular, animating idea: that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, and only he possesses the vision and courage to confront it head-on. On February 28, 2026, in front of television cameras in Jerusalem, he made it official: “If we do not stop nuclear and missile programs now, they will become immune.” The war he had been urging, preparing for, and promising his country for so long was finally here.

It was to be brief, it was to be decisive, it was to be Netanyahu’s vindication. But weeks into the war, Israel finds itself in precisely the war it had hoped to avoid—a war of attrition, of prolonged conflict, of exactly the kind of war its generals had warned against—and at precisely the point when the Israeli public’s notoriously low threshold for war is beginning to assert itself in opinion polls and on the streets. The fantasy of a bloodless, surgical strike that topples the regime in Tehran has come up against the hard truth of the world, which is that fantasies so rarely come to pass.

The Calculus of Trump: Deal or Run

But none of this miscalculation is as significant as the split between Jerusalem and Washington that it represents. For Donald Trump, as analysts at Chatham House and elsewhere have pointed out for some time, politics is never about ideology but about self-interest. He has repeatedly made it known that he prefers a deal with Iran to a war with it. What he will not do is commit American ground troops or take on the domestic political consequences of an open-ended war in the Middle East. His instinct, shaped by his perception of the grievances of his MAGA base and his own deal-maker’s impatience, is to declare victory and be gone.

This divergence between Netanyahu’s obsessive, decades-long reckoning and Trump’s restless pragmatism has created a fracture that neither man anticipated would be publicly acknowledged.

This divergence between Netanyahu’s obsessive, decades-long reckoning and Trump’s restless pragmatism has created a fracture that neither man anticipated would be publicly acknowledged.

If Trump seeks to exit quickly, claiming some form of success and then moving on to his next deal-making endeavor, Netanyahu will be left holding the bag, diplomatically isolated, militarily overstretched, and politically exposed in ways that his considerable skill at survival may be unable to overcome.

READ: Netanyahu warns war with Iran would be ‘extremely costly’

Iran’s Military Resilience

Military arithmetic was always more sobering than the war’s architects were willing to acknowledge. Iran is ranked 16th in global military strength, just one spot behind Israel. However, its true strength lies elsewhere: in asymmetric warfare, in its extensive network of regional militias it has built in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, and in its drone technology, which it has developed in its years of proxy war. Israel’s advantages are considerable: air superiority, advanced intelligence assets, and battle-hardened officers. But these are not advantages that win wars of attrition.

Iran’s resilience has already disproven this fantasy of war. Whatever its internal contradictions, the Iranian regime has shown itself capable of absorbing damage and spreading its assets in ways that defy cleaner victories.

The war has imposed upon Israel precisely the kind of war it sought to avoid: long and costly, exhausting its reservists, straining its alliances, and sapping civilian morale.

The war has imposed upon Israel precisely the kind of war it sought to avoid: long and costly, exhausting its reservists, straining its alliances, and sapping civilian morale.

The Economic Reckoning  

The economic consequences of the war have been felt, and they have not been subtle or gradual in their arrival.

Oil prices rose above $92 per barrel in just a few days after the conflict began to intensify – a 28 percent increase in just a week’s time.

Oil prices rose above $92 per barrel in just a few days after the conflict began to intensify – a 28 percent increase in just a week’s time.

Some 20 percent of the world’s crude oil and natural gas has been put on hold, and Analysts are already talking about the consequences for inflation and recession because of the destabilization in the Strait of Hormuz. These are the numbers that affect gas prices in the United States, heating oil in Europe, and economic growth in countries that have nothing to do with this conflict but will be made to pay for it anyway.  

For Trump, this is particularly dangerous, coming as it does for a leader who has staked his presidency on his economic success and who must appeal to a citizenry already worried about inflation. For Netanyahu, this is a consequence he cannot avoid – a new dimension in a gamble he has staked his legacy on.  

READ: Oil rises despite reserve release talks, Trump suggesting Iran war nearing end

A Morality Play in Real Time

Strip away the operational briefings, and what is left is a morality play about two leaders with oversized egos who have created a crisis of historic proportions because of their own imperatives. Netanyahu wanted power, escape from the legal tangles surrounding him, and above all, absolution. He wanted action, and he got paralysis. Bombs fell, oil prices rose, and alliances frayed.

He has long sounded the alarm about Iran. He has urged war. He has misjudged the situation. He has now set the fuse and seems content to sacrifice the other man to save himself. Trump may declare victory and move on to the next deal. Netanyahu may be left pleading for a ceasefire he would have scorned at the start. There is symmetry here.

Netanyahu’s lifelong obsession is finally running into reality, and the results have not been pretty. Netanyahu’s fixation on Iran—his raison d’être, the subject of countless speeches and the basis of his international alliances—has run into the reality of Trump’s short attention span, Iran’s formidable military strength, and the cold, hard facts of the global oil supply chain. What was to be Netanyahu’s crowning achievement—the culmination of four decades of warnings finally heeded—may be the greatest failure of his career. History is not kind to leaders who confuse obsession with wisdom.

OPINION: The General who swallowed his truth

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor