Last month, Opposition Leader Yair Lapid stood at the Knesset podium and tore into Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, accusing him of wrecking Israel’s most important strategic relationship.
“I once told you that you no longer understood the new America, that you were stuck in the 1980s,” Lapid said. “You argued with me, said you were still up to date. The argument is over – the relations have never reached such a low point.”
In the video clip, Netanyahu offers no words in response. Instead, he silently raises his right hand and pinches his fingers together as he motions upward in that unmistakably Israeli gesture – “savlanut (be patient).” Now, nearly a month later, we understand what he meant.
Netanyahu's long game against Iran
When Israel attacked Iran last Friday, striking deep into the heart of its nuclear infrastructure, it became clear that Netanyahu had been playing the long game that involved not only Israeli military planning but a deep and deliberate diplomatic campaign with Washington.
Already back in May, Netanyahu and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer knew where US President Donald Trump stood. America’s president may not have given Israel a green light during his first term, but he was not flashing red either. That, in itself, from a US president, was meaningful, but it was just the beginning.
From the start, Israeli officials understood the limitations of acting alone. The Israel Air Force could hit Natanz and Isfahan and maybe even attempt something at Fordow, but it would be hard to set Iran’s program back more than a year.
For a long-term delay, American involvement was crucial.
That involvement came early on Sunday morning, when the United States joined the fray, launching its own strikes on all three facilities.
The full extent of the damage is still being assessed, but one thing is already certain: This was not just a military success. It was a diplomatic one as well.
It marked a new peak in US-Israel cooperation, and in many ways a reversal of the trajectory that had seemed to be the direction when Trump returned to office in January.
Back then, the US president had called for an end to the Israel-Hamas War, warned of starvation in the Gaza Strip, held direct talks with Hamas, brokered a deal with the Houthis, sat with Syria’s new leader, a former jihadist, and pointedly skipped over Israel on his regional visit. He also began talks with Tehran.
It was the Trump administration that appeared more in sync with the isolationist wing of the Republican Party.
This “America first” faction sought to avoid foreign entanglements, military interventions, and global policing.
Some of Trump’s appointments reinforced that view, from the Pentagon to the Vice President’s Office, and the perception in Jerusalem was that the US president was not looking for a confrontation, not in Gaza, and certainly not in Iran.
The split inside the GOP over how to handle Iran became starkly visible just last week, when Sen. Ted Cruz found himself grilled by conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson in a now-viral interview.
Iran had become the latest battlefield in the ongoing battle within the conservative movement. But behind the scenes, something else was happening.
Netanyahu and Dermer were working methodically. They shared intelligence, laid out the threat, and showed Trump how the pieces fit together. They made the case that the time for action had come and that waiting would come at a cost.
Still, had Israel’s initial strike not succeeded, it is unlikely that Trump would have gone further. On June 13, immediately after the initial Israeli air assault, Washington insisted it had played no role.
But as the operation’s success became clear – and Iran remained stunned and exposed – Trump moved quickly to reposition himself.
By the weekend, he was giving interviews and taking credit for what had started without him.
He tweeted that “we” controlled Iranian airspace, a telling choice of words. He might not have fired a missile, but he was already mentally joining the mission.
When he announced Thursday that he would “decide what to do within two weeks,” it raised eyebrows in Israel and Washington. But those who know Trump understood: “Two weeks” is less a timeline and more a rhetorical device, a unit of time he often uses to consider what to do.
US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities reshape the strategic map
By Saturday, the decision was made, and the B-2 bombers were dispatched to Iran. The implications of this operation go far beyond the destruction of centrifuges and underground nuclear facilities. They reshape the strategic map.
For decades, every US president since Bill Clinton had declared that Iran must never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. But none had acted decisively.
Trump did. And in doing so, he set a precedent that will echo across the region and beyond. It was a message not only to Tehran, but to every rogue regime weighing a nuclear program of its own or the general benefits of defiance: There is a line, and if you cross it, you will pay a price.
A weakened Iran, meanwhile, has fewer resources to provide to its proxies – Hezbollah, the Houthis, militias in Iraq and Syria, and Hamas in Gaza.
That means a safer and more stable Middle East, not just for Israel but also for the Sunni Arab states who share its concerns.
Of course, the risks are not over. Iran may lash out, and escalation remains possible. But what happened on Sunday is more than a tactical success. It opens the door to a new kind of deterrence, one built not on declarations but on actions.
And for Netanyahu, often criticized as reactive and politically cornered, it was a rare moment of vindication and a reminder that sometimes, patience pays off.