The article, written by the prominent conservative journalist and Margaret Thatcher biographer Charles Moore, framed the Israeli prime minister as a Churchillian figure, whose decades‑long focus on Iran, alliance with President Donald Trump, and military successes against Hamas, Hezbollah and Tehran have fundamentally reshaped the Middle East.
The comparison likely delighted Israel’s longest-serving leader, whose supporters rapidly shared the article on social media. Benjamin Netanyahu appears to see himself as the modern-day incarnation of Winston Churchill, standing as the international bulwark against Iran as the British leader once stood against Nazi Germany.
The military success of the opening act of the current Iran war, which began with the assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has bolstered the confidence of Netanyahu’s supporters as Israel barrels toward an election later this year.
According to a preliminary survey conducted by Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) this week, 81 percent of the Israeli public supports the Iran strikes, while 63 percent of those surveyed believe the campaign should continue until the Iranian regime falls. The logo of Israel’s Channel 12 News, frequently critical of Netanyahu, added a slogan to its logo: “Together all the way.”
Opposition leaders like former Prime Ministers Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett, adjusting to the public mood, are doing Netanyahu’s international outreach for him. Lapid wrote in a column in “The Economist” this week, “On this military campaign, I stand behind the government and behind the operation in Iran.”
Political logic
Netanyahu has for decades framed Iran as Israel’s primary existential threat, shaping Israel’s security policy, diplomatic efforts and public discourse around it.
Since the October 7, 2023, attacks – the gravest security failure in Israel’s history – cast a stain on Netanyahu’s personal political brand as “Mr. Security,” he has used military campaigns to try to rewrite his legacy. At the top of the list are the 12-day war between Israel and Iran in June last year and the current operation. Sources close to Netanyahu say they are also one of the cornerstones of his reelection strategy.
The political logic is direct: Battlefield achievements will allow him to campaign on a record of results and to reframe October 7 as the opening chapter of a broader national and regional transformation. Time and again, Netanyahu has recalled his vow on October 8 to restore Israel’s deterrence and reshape the Middle East.
Since then, Israel has killed almost all the leaders of what Netanyahu calls the “Axis of Evil” – from Hamas’ Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh to Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah and now Khamenei.
Within hours of the opening strike on Iran on Saturday morning, the Prime Minister’s Office branded the campaign “Operation Roaring Lion.” Political observers saw the explicit branding as a sign of Netanyahu’s plan to capitalize on the wartime momentum at the ballot box and push for early elections to maximize the electoral dividends. (The vote is officially scheduled for late October but Netanyahu may decide to hold it sooner).
And if Netanyahu is directing the campaign, Trump is the star he wants to cast, according to the sources close to Netanyahu. The prime minister has thanked the U.S. president in nearly every statement since the operation began, praising the two nations’ close cooperation in the military campaign. He already announced his intention to present him with the prestigious Israel Prize on the country’s Independence Day next month. What’s unclear is if Trump has any desire to attend.
But in sharp contrast to the war’s popularity in Israel, the joint military endeavor is highly controversial in the United States. It may generate even more partisan polarization on Israel’s standing, already suffering after two years of an internationally unpopular Gaza war.
According to a CNN poll fielded shortly after attacks on Iran began, nearly 6 in 10 Americans disapprove of the US decision to take military action in Iran. The partisan divide is stark: only 18 percent of Democratic voters approve, compared to 77 percent of Republicans.
On Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters that the US had launched the operation because “we knew that there was going to be an Israeli action” that would precipitate an attack against American forces in the region by the Iranian regime. The remark, which spread quickly across news and social media, implied that Israel pushed the US into attacking.
Rubio attempted to clarify his comments 24 hours later, stressing, “The president made a decision.” Trump himself denied that Israel forced his hand on an attack, declaring: “Actually, I might have forced their hand.”
The damage was already done.
Israel in the bipartisan debate
One well-placed Israeli source said Rubio’s comments caused “serious harm,” feeding into the already heated discourse around the Iran war within Democratic and MAGA circles.
“The American messaging is creating confusion in terms of what actually happened on the reasons for the war, and adds to the conversation going on in America if this is a war of absolute necessity or something we are doing for our ally,”, Jeremy Issacharoff, a former vice-director general and head of strategic affairs at the Israeli foreign ministry, told CNN.
“It’s always bad for Israel to become involved in a bipartisan debate,” said Issacharoff, now a senior fellow for the Reichman University’s Institute for Policy and Strategy. “Then you have the situation within America where all of a sudden, people are paying $3.12 for a gallon of gas, the stock market’s going down, oil prices are going up, and people are starting to ask, do we really need this?”
Netanyahu has a long history of urging the US to go to war in the Middle East. In 2002, he openly lobbied for the US to declare war on Iraq and topple the regime of Saddam Hussein. He subsequently waged a high-profile campaign against the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Now, positioned as the architect of a second Iran war, he risks being cast as the principal driver of a conflict large swaths of U.S. voters – both Democrat and Republican – did not seek.
But now that the war has already started, it must – at some point – come to an end, if both Netanyahu and Trump are to be believed that this is not another “forever war.”
The 12-day war in June ended with Trump ordering Israel to turn back its fighter jets from another attack on Iran. Netanyahu declared on the first day of the current operation that its goal is to “remove the existential threat to Israel from the Ayatollah regime in Iran” If Trump decides he has achieved victory before Israel has accomplished all of its goals, this one could end the same way.
“Where is this going? What is the exit ramp? What is the goal? How is this going to affect the situation on the ground within Iran, in terms of encouraging regime change?” asked Issacharoff. “If these things don’t all come together, then Americans are going to start thinking ‘why did we get into this?’ and I’m pretty sure there will be those that will be happy to sort of lay everything on Israel.”
While Netanyahu may enjoy broad domestic support over the assault on Iran, his close association with Trump and the joint war effort risk undermining one of Israel’s strongest strategic assets: the bipartisan support that Israel has had for decades. Netanyahu’s military and electoral campaigns may secure his short-term political future at home even as they risk further strain to Israel’s most vital alliance abroad.
