Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has defended the latest joint strikes by Israel and the United States on Iran, arguing that Tehran had restarted its nuclear programme and was constructing underground facilities that would soon make its arsenal “immune” to attack. In an interview with Fox News, Netanyahu maintained that urgent action was necessary to prevent Iran from shielding its ballistic missile and atomic infrastructure beyond reach. His assertion frames the operation as a pre-emptive necessity rather than an escalation of choice.
Yet, the explanation raises uncomfortable questions. Only last year, both Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump had declared a “historic victory,” claiming Iran’s nuclear programme had been decisively crippled. If the programme was indeed “obliterated,” as earlier stated, the rapid resurgence described now suggests either a serious intelligence lapse or an overstatement of past success. Critics have long argued that Iran may have relocated enriched uranium stockpiles before previous strikes, casting doubt on the durability of those military gains.
Netanyahu has rejected suggestions that Israel and the US are sliding into an “endless war,” insisting the current operation will conclude swiftly. However, history offers sobering lessons about conflicts launched with limited objectives that evolve into prolonged engagements. The central dilemma remains unchanged: can military strikes truly eliminate Iran’s nuclear ambitions, or do they merely reset the clock while deepening regional instability?