Netanyahu is good at starting wars, but it ends it

Open the newsletter to watch the White House for free

Your guide to what the second period of Trump means to Washington, business and the world

The author, author of “Wave” and FT contribution editor

In the hours after October 7, Benjamin Netanyahu promised a war that “would change the Middle East.” Almost two years later, the area looks completely different. It is recognized that Netanyahu can demand a victory in Lebanon, where Hezbollah has been destroyed. As a secondary product, the fall of the neighboring Bashar al -Assad was a great relief for the Syrians. But Gaza is a pile of rubble, with more than 50,000 Palestinian dead and 53 Israelis still in captivity.

Now he is on his face Next goalIran. Since Friday, it has become clear that the Israeli military campaign exceeds the nuclear program and military targets. There is no doubt that Netanyahu is working to persuade Donald Trump to participate and help in handing over a jury to the country’s system.

But the Israeli Prime Minister has a bleak record when it comes to converting military victories into long -term diplomatic successes and a worse record of understanding the region around him. Over the past twenty months, Netanyahu refused to continue to win – whether the Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar kills, a ceasefire in Lebanon, or initiatives from new leaders in Syria. Instead, he continued to strike Lebanon in Will and hit Syria, while the rest of the region helps the activity of the two governments to stabilize and rebuild their countries. Israel also seized a 400 square kilometer insulating area inside Syria, indefinitely.

The most harsh paradox at the present moment is that 40 years ago, at the height of the Iraqi Iran war, Netanyahu was an Israeli diplomat in the United States, where he called for the sale of weapons to Iran to avoid comprehensive Iraqi victory. That war ended on a dead end and the Islamic Republic escaped.

Netanyahu did not play a major role in what became the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration, but his position indicates a fixed policy to build enemies that he can destroy later. Israel helped build Hamas to weaken the organization of Palestine Liberation in the 1980s, and recently, to undermine the Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu helped direct millions of dollars to Hamas until October 7. Now Israel provides weapons and money for gangs in Gaza to weaken Hamas. This helps to ensure that there is no viable Palestinian state at all.

Netanyahu has also misunderstood the region, from his inability to understand the true nature of Iranian derocate in the 1980s to his call for the 2003 American invasion of Iraq. He expected that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would lead to a “tremendous positive resonance” to the Middle East and demanded the Iranians to welfare against their leaders. The opposite happened: It was an expensive strategic disaster that managed to Tehran and launched years of sectarian blood shedding.

Today, a few people melt tears for an Iranian regime that made life millions of millions and is responsible for the death of tens of thousands across the region – but the Iranians are not waiting to be liberated by Israeli bombs. In a strange way, it appears that Israel is now simulating the role of Iran – to stay in full swing, build bases forward and sow the chaos that are arrogant and the feeling of impunity.

Alan Air, a former American diplomat who participated in the previous nuclear negotiations with Iran, summarized better: “This is the world of Israel and we are only watching it now.” But this is not the world of neighbors in Israel – or in reality many Israelis – they want. The United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia followed Diette with Tehran. They are concerned about chaos, economic repercussions and frustration with Israel’s continuous attempts to violently reshape the region.

It may not be what Washington wants. Trump carried a promise not to engage in more wars and wanted “Nixon the moment of China” with Iran. Perhaps he participated in a smart campaign DeceptionHe paid Iran’s attention to talks while Israel was ready for strike, but it seems that Trump does not have the discipline required for such a step. It is more likely that he gathered behind Netanyahu’s arrival, in the hope that this would be the cow of Iran in difficult concessions.

This is the place where the two men are likely to diverge: where Netanyahu wants Iranian surrender and even the change of the regime, Trump said he wanted a nuclear agreement with Iran. The American president should be very cautious about taking advantage of the calling of alarm in Netanyahu to make Iran and the Middle East great again, with other strikes, then a few.

There was a lot of dread about the amazing opening strikes of Israel against Iran and Moussad may have more tricks. But wars are judged by how to conclude it – Netanyahu has shown that he does not know how the war ends.