As U.S. President Donald Trump launched a surprise attack on Iran, assessments emerged that the winner is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had spent months persuading President Trump that, with the Iranian regime weakened, now was the optimal time to strike Iran, and he is said to have played a decisive role in Trump’s decision to attack Iran.

In an interview with Fox News on the 3rd (local time), Netanyahu said, “For decades, I have tried to persuade successive U.S. administrations to take ‘decisive measures’ against Iran,” adding, “Only President Trump actually took action.” Although U.S. Defense Secretary Hegseth said that regime change in Iran is not the objective of the attack, Netanyahu said that the U.S.-Israeli strikes would create the conditions for regime change in Iran.

The New York Times (NYT) reported the previous day that President Trump’s decision to attack Iran was made during Netanyahu’s White House visit on the 11th of last month. The two leaders discussed for three hours the possibility of war, potential dates for an attack, and the prospects of striking a deal with Iran. At that meeting, Netanyahu emphasized the need for a strike, arguing that the Iranian regime had been weakened.

Earlier, in December last year, Netanyahu visited President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and asked the United States to grant approval for Israel to attack Iran’s missile bases within the coming months. Two months later, he gained the United States, which possesses the world’s most powerful military, as a ‘war partner’ for toppling Iran’s system. The NYT assessed the U.S. decision to attack Iran as ‘Netanyahu’s victory’.

Netanyahu told Fox News the same day, “There will not be an endless war,” and, “Because the Iranian regime is in its most vulnerable state since its founding, this measure (the strike) will be carried out swiftly and decisively.” He added that a joint U.S.-Israeli operation would “open an era of peace we never even dreamed of,” saying that if the Iranian regime collapses, peace agreements would be concluded between Israel and Middle Eastern countries.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also made remarks suggesting that the U.S. strike on Iran followed Israel’s preemptive attack on Iran. Rubio told reporters that the United States knew Israel planned to strike Iran, and that U.S. intelligence had obtained information indicating Iran would retaliate by attacking U.S. assets in the region, which is why the United States launched the “Majestic Fury” operation.

As for the claim that Israel dragged the United States into the conflict, he laughed and said, “That is nonsense. President Trump is the most powerful leader in the world. He does what he believes is right for America.”

Responding to Rubio’s remarks, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi criticized the U.S. attack on Iran as “a voluntary war for Israel,” saying, “Responsibility for bloodshed among both the American and Iranian peoples lies with Israel-firsters.”

Meanwhile, analysts say it is also what Netanyahu wanted that Hezbollah, the Lebanese armed faction allied with Iran, joined the retaliation for the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran and the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Israel had been unable to launch a full-scale assault due to a ceasefire agreement with Hezbollah, but the military clash with Iran has given it an opportunity to eliminate Hezbollah. Hezbollah is based in southern Lebanon, which borders Israel.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported, citing Israeli officials, that Israel had been waiting for Hezbollah to initiate a preemptive strike that would give Israel justification to carry out a massive retaliatory attack.

In fact, as soon as Hezbollah carried out retaliatory attacks against Israel, Israel launched a powerful counteroffensive.

There are also arguments that Hezbollah’s attack on Israel was a foolish decision. David Daoud of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank said, “Hezbollah will know that if it fires even a single shot against Israel, it has to go all the way,” assessing Hezbollah’s attack as difficult to justify strategically.