Mission accomplished for Netanyahu?

FOR BINYAMIN NETANYAHU, Israel’s prime minister, this is a moment of triumph. For decades he has urged American presidents to act forcefully on Iran. Now, under Donald Trump’s command, America has inflicted huge strikes on Iran’s three main nuclear facilities. The attacks included dropping bunker-busting bombs on Fordow, the deepest of the sites. Mr Trump claims that the attacks have been decisive, “obliterating” Iran’s nuclear programme and ending the war.

The simmering discord between the leaders has vanished. Both spoke after the strike and co-ordinated their public messages. “We worked as a team—like perhaps no team has ever worked before,” proclaimed Mr Trump in his televised address, using Mr Netanyahu’s nickname, “Bibi”. It is a pivotal moment for Israel’s prime minister. Later, in Hebrew, he referred to Israel’s campaign in the past tense and declared that the American attack fulfilled his promise to the Israeli people to destroy the Iranian nuclear threat that has haunted them for years. But many questions remain, about Iran’s response, whether Israel will actually wind down its campaign and what the consequences will be for the Iranian regime, American-Israeli relations and Mr Netanyahu’s rule.

For now the war in the air is still being fought. Five hours after the American strike Iran launched two salvoes of missiles at Israel. At least three missiles got through, destroying buildings in Tel Aviv and Haifa but with no fatalities. Israel had been expecting the attack: non-essential businesses have been told to shut and its airspace closed. Israeli warplanes are still roaming over western Iran, hunting the remaining missile-launchers. Yet as far as retaliation goes, the Iranian salvoes are a gesture of defiance rather than an escalatory attack. Iran has yet to touch American forces or other non-Israeli targets, or ask its proxy militias to retaliate. America hopes its military clout will deter these and has been shifting aircraft and ships to the Middle East. If necessary, it is poised to launch another wave of attacks on Iran, alongside Israel.

For how long will Israel continue its campaign? “It all depends on the Iranians,” is the uniform response of Israeli officers. If there is no Iranian escalation, there is a case to wind down soon. There have been nine days of air strikes. The Israeli Air Force has hit most of the targets identified before the war, in some cases sooner than expected, officers say. Israel’s official war aims were to remove the “imminent” threat of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic projects by causing them significant damage and to force the Iranian regime to accept limits on any further development. Fordow and parts of Natanz remained beyond the reach of Israel’s bombs, but with America’s strikes this objective of “significant damage” has probably been achieved.

Against that, some in Israel’s security state believe it will have to continue fighting in the air. Some within Iran’s autocratic regime may believe their own propaganda–that they have barely been scathed by Israeli and American attacks, while their missiles have inflicted immense damage on the Israelis. They could launch more missiles in the hope of shoring up credibility at home. This could provide a pretext for Israel to hit regime targets. That might include, some Israeli politicians have suggested, assassinating Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader.

There is no sign yet that Iran might accept curbs on what remains of its nuclear programme. On June 22nd Abbas Araghchi, its foreign minister, said Mr Trump had betrayed Iran by abusing its commitment to diplomacy. The country could pursue a middle course, eschewing both attacks across the region and talks with America. The Iranian leadership could play down the American strikes and focus on tightening their grip at home and maintaining a steady trickle of missile attacks on Israel with its remaining missile launchers. There would be a lingering suspicion that Iran has retained some of its nuclear-research capability and had some enriched uranium stashed away.

Yet absent Iranian escalation, an extended air campaign comes with risks for Israel. It has not yet lost an aircraft, but the high-tempo long-range sorties are still expensive and risky. The maximalist aim, of pushing for regime change, which Mr Netanyahu has flirted with several times during the war, is no longer his call to make. And there is another factor to consider: the relationship between America and Israel which has just been transformed.

America has given the Jewish state unending support, military and diplomatic, over the decades and Mr Trump’s administration was already invested in Israel’s defence with THAAD missile batteries, backed up by US Navy destroyers and a network of surveillance satellites. Nonetheless he is the first American president to have struck another country’s nuclear sites, and the first to have overtly joined Israel in an attack on an adversary.

That comes with a price for Israel and Mr Netanyahu: while the countries are partners in a war it is clear who the senior partner is. Mr Trump, having crossed a Rubicon on Iran, may be eager to prove to the world he can also be a peacemaker. Even at this unprecedented moment, the Americans insisted that their operation remained separate. Israel received only a brief advance notice, to make sure its aircraft weren’t in the strike areas. Its fighter-jets have won air superiority over Iran, but America conducted a sweep with its own fighters before the bombers arrived. It was a clear reminder of the pecking order.

After having invested in Israel’s security more than any president, Mr Trump also has a degree of leverage none of his predecessors enjoyed. Should he choose, he could call time on Israel’s air campaign against Iran and the war in Gaza, now in its 21st month. For better or worse, America’s president now owns Israel’s war.

It remains to be seen whether Mr Netanyahu fully grasps what has changed. He has at last realised his dream of having America fighting side-by-side with Israel to smash Iran’s nuclear programme. He could use this moment to end both of Israel’s wars, in Gaza and Iran, with ceasefires, as the administration has been urging. And now he has the political capital to refuse the demands of his far-right coalition partners who dream of annexing Gaza. Ploughing on with either war risks squandering the historic opportunity handed to him by Mr Trump. ■