By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a US military strike on three Iranian nuclear sites, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lauded President Trump’s “bold decision,” praising the action as a historic pivot toward Middle Eastern peace and prosperity. Netanyahu confirmed prior coordination with the US, fulfilling a promise to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. The attacks, which followed days of escalating tensions and prior Israeli strikes, prompted Israel to raise its national alert level to essential activities only. Despite the celebrations, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed deep concern over the dangerous escalation and urged a diplomatic solution.
Read the original article here
Netanyahu’s effusive congratulations to Trump following a US attack on Iran highlight a complex and potentially troubling dynamic between the two leaders. The Israeli Prime Minister’s description of the attack as “bold” and his assertion that it will “change history” suggests a level of pre-planning and coordination that warrants scrutiny. The praise, overflowing with superlatives like “unsurpassed,” paints a picture of a carefully orchestrated event where the US action was perhaps less a spontaneous decision and more a response to carefully-crafted appeals to Trump’s ego.
The timing and nature of Netanyahu’s statement raise significant questions. The almost immediate and unreserved praise seems less like a genuine reaction to events and more like a pre-scripted response designed to solidify a specific narrative. The use of terms like “change history,” while dramatic, lacks specific detail and could be interpreted as a vague and ultimately empty declaration intended to inflate the significance of the event. This suggests a calculated attempt to leverage the situation for political gain, potentially at the expense of a more nuanced and considered response to the geopolitical implications.
The characterization of the US as “unsurpassed” in the wake of the attack speaks volumes about the carefully cultivated relationship between Netanyahu and Trump. It suggests a degree of subservience on the part of the US, acting not on its own independent foreign policy but rather in response to Israeli interests. This raises concerns about the influence wielded by a foreign power over US decision-making, particularly when concerning military action with potentially far-reaching consequences. The lack of independent US agency in the situation is troubling, implying a potential erosion of American sovereignty.
The underlying tone of Netanyahu’s statement is undeniably one of triumph. The celebratory nature of the message and the strong language used suggest a degree of satisfaction that extends beyond the simple approval of a military operation. This reinforces the suspicion that this was a coordinated endeavor, with Israel playing a pivotal role in setting the stage for the attack and then reaping the rewards of its success through this public display of approval. The emphasis on the “boldness” of the attack suggests that it was not simply a response to a specific threat, but rather a calculated risk designed to achieve a larger strategic goal. This strategic goal remains opaque, but its execution seems to have been successful, at least in securing Netanyahu’s unequivocal endorsement.
The potential for unintended consequences is, however, a significant concern. An attack of this magnitude, especially without clear and broadly accepted justification, carries the risk of escalating tensions in the region and provoking unpredictable reactions. The lack of any mention of those potential risks in Netanyahu’s statement is troubling, suggesting a focus primarily on the immediate political benefits of the attack rather than a balanced consideration of the long-term implications. The celebratory tone feels starkly out of place given the potential for violence and instability that this act of aggression has unleashed.
The entire episode raises questions about the wisdom of basing US foreign policy on personal relationships and appeals to ego. The ease with which Netanyahu seems to have manipulated Trump suggests a degree of vulnerability in the US leadership that is deeply unsettling. The situation underscores the need for a more robust and independent foreign policy framework, one that is less susceptible to influence from foreign powers and more focused on the long-term interests of the American people. The lack of transparency and the potential for unchecked influence suggest that a thorough examination of the decision-making process leading up to the attack is warranted. The world deserves a clearer understanding of the role that Israeli interests played in shaping US foreign policy in this instance.