British analyst: Netanyahu's policies are leading Israel towards 'strategic catastrophe' and erosion of American support

British analyst Gideon Rachman, in an article published by the 'Financial Times', considered that the military orientations of the occupation prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu are putting Israel's long-term security at risk. He pointed out that the decision to wage war on Iran, despite enjoying widespread support within Israeli society, exceeding 80%, lacks the required popularity in the United States, creating a dangerous strategic gap.

Rachman explained that Netanyahu has invested decades of his political life in portraying Tehran as an existential threat, considering the recent raids as the fulfillment of an ambition he pursued for forty years. However, the analyst believes that these wars have not brought the desired security, but rather contributed to weakening bipartisan support from both the Democratic and Republican parties, support that historically represented the primary pillar of Israel's survival.

The article touched upon the course of confrontation with Iran, emphasizing that it is heading in unexpected directions, far from the promises of 'quick victory' promoted by Netanyahu and Donald Trump. This was evident in the field escalation, which included Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz, affecting navigation and the global economy, and increasing the complexities of the regional conflict.

The writer cited the recent Iranian missile attacks on areas in the southern occupied territories as evidence that a long war has become a direct threat to both Israeli civilians and soldiers. He warned that the continuation of this military bleeding would deepen the crisis with the American ally, which has begun to feel the burden of being dragged into costly conflicts that do not serve its direct interests.

Citing Danny Citrinowicz, a former official in the occupation intelligence, the article conveyed his skepticism about the official narrative regarding the 'imminent nuclear threat'. Citrinowicz indicated that the Iranian leadership had shown flexibility in negotiations to reduce uranium stockpiles, but the desire for military escalation overshadowed possible diplomatic solutions.

Strategic analysts believe that the real danger to Israel lies not only in Iran's military capabilities but also in the radical shift in American public opinion. Gallup Institute data showed that sympathy for Palestinians surpassed that for Israelis for the first time, as a result of scenes from the Gaza Strip and the fall of thousands of civilian casualties.

This popular shift has begun to translate into firm political stances within the Democratic Party, where voices have emerged describing Israel as an 'apartheid state'. Rachman points out that potential candidates for the 2028 presidential elections, such as Gavin Newsom, are now adopting more critical language towards the occupation's policies, signaling a change in the nature of the future relationship.

On the Republican side, the alliance with the 'MAGA' movement led by Trump is no longer fully guaranteed, as feelings of isolationism and rejection of foreign wars are escalating. This was evident in the resignation of prominent officials in the former Trump administration, such as Joe Kent, who explicitly accused Tel Aviv of trying to drag Washington into a wide regional war.

Although Trump responded to Netanyahu's pressures at certain stages, the failure to achieve a quick military decisive victory could turn the tables. Involvement in a long and costly war, both humanly and economically, will inevitably lead to negative reactions within the American electoral base, which has begun to reject the policy of 'blank checks' for foreign wars.

The article predicted that the 2028 elections would see explicit calls from both parties to reduce military and political aid provided to the occupation. This shift would be a 'strategic catastrophe', especially since Israel has received more than $16 billion in direct aid since the start of the war in October 2023 to secure its defensive and offensive needs.

Rachman criticized Netanyahu's narrative that security is achieved only through pure military force, pointing out that facts prove the opposite. Despite assassinations and airstrikes, Hamas still exists, and Hezbollah has regained its ability to engage in confrontation, meaning that the declared 'historical victories' are merely temporary palliatives.

In conclusion, the British analyst stressed that political and diplomatic solutions with Palestinians and regional powers are the only sustainable path. He considered that Netanyahu's insistence on prioritizing the language of war, amid the erosion of international legitimacy and American support, represents a sure recipe for a comprehensive strategic collapse that threatens the entity's future.

The war Netanyahu sought has not made the occupation state more secure, but rather endangered its long-term security as a result of losing American support.