Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
This is a guest essay by Vanessa Berg, who writes about Judaism and Israel.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
Few politicians in the modern era have demonstrated the durability, adaptability, and instinctive feel for politics that Benjamin Netanyahu has.
Long before the current war, long before the regional chessboard grew this volatile, Netanyahu earned a reputation not just as a survivor, but as a builder. That reputation was forged in the early 2000s when, as Israel’s Finance Minister during the depths of the Second Intifada, he helped engineer one of the most dramatic economic turnarounds in modern history.
At the time, Israel’s economy was suffocating under stagnation, high unemployment, and declining investor confidence. Netanyahu responded with a sweeping reform agenda rooted in market liberalization. He cut taxes aggressively, reduced the size of the public sector, imposed fiscal discipline, and pushed forward major privatizations — including state stakes in banks, oil refineries, the EL AL national airliner, and ZIM Integrated Shipping Services. Welfare reforms aimed to shift citizens into the workforce, while structural changes targeted monopolies and inefficiencies.
The results were striking: Growth rebounded, unemployment fell, debt levels dropped, and foreign investment surged. By the end of his tenure as Finance Minister, Netanyahu was widely credited as performing an “economic miracle” in just three years’ time, cementing his image as a leader who could not only navigate crises but reshape outcomes.
Now, two decades later, he faces a challenge of a different magnitude.
The recently announced ceasefire between Israel, Iran, and the United States — more accurately described as a pause — is not an endpoint. It is an inflection point. Wars do not produce outcomes on their own. They create leverage, shift realities, and open doors. But the outcomes themselves are forged in the realm of politics: negotiation, positioning, coalition-building, and long-term planning.
Anyone who believed the Iranian regime would simply collapse or surrender misunderstands both the realities of the Middle East and the ideological resilience embedded within the Islamic Republic of Iran. This war was never about producing a clean, decisive outcome. It was about shaping leverage, which means placing the United States, Israel, and their allies in the strongest possible position for what actually determines the endgame — again: negotiation, positioning, coalition-building, and long-term strategy.
The Vietnam War offers a sharp example. The United States won countless tactical engagements, yet failed to convert battlefield success into political victory. North Vietnam, by contrast, understood that endurance and positioning could outlast military setbacks. The war’s outcome was ultimately determined not by firepower, but by political will, negotiation dynamics, and long-term strategy.
A more regionally relevant case is the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Israel recovered militarily and even gained the upper hand by the end of the war, but the real outcome was shaped afterward. Egypt leveraged the war, despite its battlefield losses, to reposition itself diplomatically, leading to a landmark peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. The war created the leverage; diplomacy defined the result.
This is where Netanyahu’s legacy will be decided. It is relatively easy to deploy an army and air force against a militarily inferior Iran. It is relatively easy to penetrate the regime’s apparatus through superior intelligence. What is far more difficult, and far more consequential, is what comes next: preventing a temporary de-escalation from hardening into a strategic ceiling, one that constrains Israel’s freedom of action while granting its adversaries the time and space to regroup, recalibrate, and ultimately regain the initiative.
A pause, especially one driven by external pressures and competing interests, carries risk. What begins as a two-week ceasefire can quickly evolve into a prolonged standstill. That standstill can harden into a de facto constraint on action. The pause becomes paralysis. Iran regains initiative, using time to strengthen its position in negotiations. U.S. pressure pushes Israel toward concessions. Domestic confidence erodes. What began as a moment of strength gradually transforms into a story of missed opportunity.
To add insult to injury, Iran is not Israel’s only concern. Hezbollah remains entrenched and armed to the north in Lebanon. Syria remains unstable, fragmented, and susceptible to influence from multiple hostile actors. The broader regional picture is not one of resolution, but of layered and overlapping threats. A pause with Iran does not simplify Israel’s strategic environment; it complicates it.
At the same time, the United States and Israel are not perfectly aligned. Far from it. They have very different agendas, goals, timelines, and interests. Public messaging may emphasize unity, but strategic priorities diverge.
Within the orbit of Donald Trump’s administration, there are multiple factions with differing views on Iran, regional policy, and the acceptable limits of escalation. Vice President JD Vance, who will lead the U.S. negotiating team in talks with Iran in Pakistan starting Saturday, opposed the Iran operation during pre-war deliberations out of concern about its success and cost, according to White House insiders.
Now, Vance and his administration allies are finding themselves on the defensive, in large part because, leading up to the last presidential election, he positioned himself as strongly anti-war, a stance that resonated with voters weary of foreign conflicts. But that same position could be turned against him if he chooses to run for president in 2028, especially in a political climate where national security and military engagement are increasingly front-of-mind issues. Opponents could portray him as a hypocrite or outright liar.
The Republican Party must also be imagining and preparing for their post-Trump era. This November, Americans will head to the polls for midterm elections, deciding all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 35 Senate seats for the 120th Congress, along with 39 gubernatorial races, attorney general elections, and numerous state and local contests.
As of today, the Republican Party holds the majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in the 119th Congress, but that could change come November. Voters are already concerned about the economy, and the rise in energy prices since the outbreak of war may very well lead many voters to go against the Republicans.
In other words, the internal fragmentation in Washington, D.C. makes American policy less predictable and therefore less reliable as a foundation for Israeli strategy — which means Netanyahu’s most effective counterweight may not be the White House, but the region itself. Quiet and overt partnerships with Arab states, built over years through shared concerns about Iran, offer Israel an alternative axis of strength. A coordinated Israeli-Arab posture can establish red lines not just for Tehran, but for the White House as well. In geopolitics, numbers matter; alignment matters. And Netanyahu has long understood how to build both.
But understanding the game is not the same as winning it.
This moment will define Netanyahu’s legacy because it directly shapes his future. If he successfully navigates this phase — if he converts military positioning into favorable political outcomes — he enters the next election cycle later this year with renewed credibility. His argument becomes clear: experience, resilience, and results. In that scenario, another term is not only plausible, but likely. Even his ongoing legal challenges could fade in significance, potentially opening the door to a political resolution or pardon.
If he fails, the consequences are far more severe.
Failure here would not simply be tactical; it would be narrative. It would validate the growing critique that military gains were not translated into strategic success. Opposition figures like Yair Lapid have already framed the argument sharply: that without a coherent diplomatic plan, force alone leads to a dead end. In this view, what could have been a position of strength risks becoming a “strategic debacle.”
If that perception takes hold among the Israeli public, Netanyahu’s political footing weakens. Election prospects become diminished. Legal vulnerabilities become more dangerous. And history begins to shift its lens: from economic miracle-maker and longest-serving prime minister, to a leader who faltered at a decisive moment.
There is, of course, another possibility.
Netanyahu has built a career on narrative control. After the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal, he positioned himself as the lone voice warning against a flawed agreement, framing opposition as foresight rather than defeat. Following the 2016 U.S. aid package, he emphasized the scale of support while downplaying the strategic constraints it imposed. Time and again, he has demonstrated an ability to reinterpret outcomes in ways that preserve political strength.
But this time may be different.
Israeli society has changed since Netanyahu’s governing coalition took office in late 2022. The last three-plus years of political turmoil, judicial reform and hostage protests, and more than two years of sustained war means public patience is thinner. The gap between real victory and manufactured victory is more visible and more scrutinized. The conditions that once allowed for narrative flexibility are less forgiving now, which brings Netanyahu back to where he has always operated best: on the edge of uncertainty.
Years ago, Israelis gave him a nickname: “The Magician.” It reflects his ability to maneuver through crises, to defy expectations, and to emerge politically intact when others would have fallen.
Now, he faces the ultimate test of that reputation.
No man should rule for more than a decade. It is time for new leaders in Israel.
This is one of the best, concise analyses I have studied in the last 24 hours. Light years ahead of the myriad of talking heads on mainstream outlets.
“internal fragmentation in Washington, D.C. makes American policy less predictable and therefore less reliable as a foundation for Israeli strategy — which means Netanyahu’s most effective counterweight may not be the White House, but the region itself. Quiet and overt partnerships with Arab states, built over years through shared concerns about Iran, offer Israel an alternative axis of strength.”
This is the key which unlocks the door to sustainable strategic dominance in the Middle East. Together with Haviv Gur’s expertise and understanding of the enemy, and realistic, rather than ego driven cognitive dissonance on this war, your thinking gives us both hope and pause in the middle of this immense fog.