NEW DELHI: As the United States and Iran edge closer to a wider conflict with fresh rounds of strikes, Israel has taken an unusually low profile. The silence is striking because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had long pressed Donald Trump to confront Tehran militarily, playing a key role in the run-up to earlier US-Israeli operations.
After all, it was Netanyahu who had successfully sold the idea of eliminating Ayatollah Khamenei and Iran’s top leadership in a single blow, paving the way for the joint US-Israeli strikes on February 28 and the war that followed.
Even ahead of the latest escalation, Israel shared fresh intelligence with the Pentagon about an alleged Iranian assassination plot targeting Donald Trump, a move that, among a host of other factors, ultimately pushed the US President towards the ongoing military action.
Yet, with Washington now leading the attacks on Iran, Israel has stepped back from the public stage. So, what explains this shift?
Israel’s strategy of staying on the sidelines has, for now, spared it from becoming the primary target of Iranian retaliation, while other regional players hosting US military bases — such as Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan and Oman — have borne the brunt of Tehran’s retaliation.
This gives Israel valuable time to quietly replenish its already strained air-defence systems. Notably, in the latest round of strikes, the US has also avoided using Israeli territory as a launch pad.
But the balancing act may not last. With tensions between the US and Iran capable of spiralling into a wider war with a single misstep by Tehran — or a direct attack on Israel — Netanyahu knows his country may not be able to stay on the sidelines indefinitely.
However, Israel’s muted public posture does not necessarily reflect a lack of appetite for renewed military action.
According to The New York Times, calls to “finish the job” have persisted in Israel since the ceasefire with Iran in April. Many within the country’s security establishment believe the campaign ended before Israel could strike key Iranian energy infrastructure and other strategic targets that, in their view, might have severely weakened the Islamic Republic.
“Everybody in the defense establishment and the government is rooting for another shot,” Nimrod Novik, a former adviser to ex-Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres and now a fellow at the Israel Policy Forum, told The New York Times.
“There’s an old IDF slogan — just one more hill, and victory is assured,” he said, while cautioning that history has rarely borne out that assumption.
Novik also told The New York Times that much of the Israeli public would be willing to endure more missile attacks and disruptions to daily life if it meant permanently eliminating what they see as the Iranian threat.
At the same time, analysts quoted by The New York Times cautioned that another war would come at a significant economic cost for Israel, while any expanded campaign against Iran’s infrastructure would likely inflict greater suffering on Iranian civilians than on the country’s leadership.
The newspaper also reported that Netanyahu’s relative silence during the latest round of hostilities reflects a broader strategic calculation.
Analysts told The New York Times that Israel cannot afford to be seen internationally as the country pushing for another war, especially amid the widespread perception that Netanyahu played a major role in drawing US President Donald Trump into the earlier conflict.
For now, that has left Israel pursuing what many see as the least risky option: waiting while Washington and Tehran remain locked in a cycle of strikes and counterstrikes.
Another reason cited by analysts is that if Israel were to launch airstrikes on Iran, it would also have to use the airspace of Jordan, Syria and Iraq, broadening the theatre of engagement and further escalating the regional crisis.
