Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a comprehensive assessment of the conflict on Friday, describing Iran as collapsing on two fronts simultaneously — militarily, through the destruction of its uranium enrichment and missile production capabilities, and politically, through the visible fracturing of its new leadership structure. He denied reports that Israel had pushed the United States into the conflict. Netanyahu expressed strong optimism that the war was approaching its end faster than most observers had calculated.
On the question of US involvement, Netanyahu was forceful in his denial. He argued that no one could tell Donald Trump what to do, challenging the premise that Israel had steered the American president toward war. Netanyahu described Trump’s understanding of the Iranian nuclear threat as independently formed and deeply informed, and said Trump had in fact contributed analytical insight to their joint discussions on the danger.
The prime minister confirmed Israel’s unilateral strike on the South Pars gas compound and disclosed Trump’s request to pause further attacks on Iranian gas infrastructure. He handled both facts with transparency and care, presenting them as natural elements of a close and functional alliance. Netanyahu emphasized that Israel’s military autonomy was a core principle that had not been compromised.
Netanyahu called Iran’s Hormuz threats hollow blackmail and proposed pipeline routes from the Arabian Peninsula to Israeli and Mediterranean ports as a structural solution. He argued this infrastructure would create lasting resilience against Iranian maritime pressure and reduce global dependency on the strait for energy exports. Netanyahu linked this vision to his broader post-conflict plans for regional development.
The prime minister’s closing remarks focused on Tehran’s internal turmoil. He noted the anticipated new supreme leader had not been seen publicly and admitted genuine uncertainty about who was governing Iran. Netanyahu observed visible power struggles among competing factions and concluded that this political chaos, layered over military losses, was driving the conflict toward a faster-than-expected conclusion.