A calculated strike: How Netanyahu methodically positioned Israel to hit Iran

For years, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s warnings about Iran’s nuclear ambitions were widely dismissed as political theater. 

But this week, following a dramatic Israeli strike deep inside Iranian territory, those warnings are being reassessed—not as bluster, but as the culmination of a long, deliberate strategy.

According to Netanyahu, the operation launched last Friday was the result of years of planning. In a televised interview, he explained that while earlier attempts to carry out a strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure—between 2010 and 2012—were derailed by internal opposition and international pressure, circumstances in 2025 had changed dramatically.

“Back then, I didn’t have the backing of the military, the intelligence community, or the cabinet,” Netanyahu said. “This time, everything aligned.”

The shift, he suggested, began with Hamas’s unprecedented attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. That assault, while devastating, disrupted a much broader regional strategy designed in Tehran.

The Collapse of Iran’s Proxy Web

Former Israeli National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror described the attack as a turning point in Iran’s regional strategy. Speaking in a recent webinar, Amidror outlined Iran’s longstanding effort to encircle Israel with proxy forces—Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, Shi’ite militias in Syria and Iraq, and growing influence in the West Bank.

But when Hamas launched its offensive without apparent coordination from Tehran or Hezbollah, it triggered a strategic unraveling. Rather than expanding the conflict to multiple fronts, Israel adopted a sequential approach—focusing first on Gaza, then Lebanon, and eventually Syria.

In Amidror’s view, Israel’s methodical dismantling of Iran’s proxy network not only weakened Tehran’s position, but created an unexpected advantage: an unobstructed corridor stretching from Israel into western Iran, as air defense systems in Syria and Iraq were systematically neutralized.

While its regional influence crumbled, Iran’s nuclear efforts reportedly accelerated. Intelligence suggested that Tehran was racing to overcome the final technological barriers to weaponization. 

At the same time, it ramped up production of long-range ballistic missiles—estimated at 300 per month, with the potential to produce over 11,000 missiles in six years.

Netanyahu, citing these developments, described the threat as existential. “One nuclear warhead could destroy Israel,” he said. “We could not allow this to become a reality.”

The decision to act, he implied, was no longer a matter of preference or timing—it was a matter of survival.

Strategic Patience and Internal Resistance

Critics, particularly during the Obama administration, doubted Netanyahu’s willingness to confront Iran militarily. In 2014, a senior U.S. official famously dismissed him as “a chickenshit,” suggesting that Israeli threats to strike Iran were hollow and that time had run out.

But those doubts failed to account for the domestic constraints Netanyahu faced at the time. Internal opposition from the Israel Defense Forces, Mossad, and key cabinet ministers repeatedly blocked earlier plans to strike. The U.S. administration’s pursuit of a nuclear agreement with Iran only added to the pressure.

In hindsight, those delays weren’t signs of cowardice—they were pauses born of unfavorable conditions. Netanyahu waited, quietly refining operational plans and gathering political and military support.

The Final Trigger

Netanyahu likened his long-term strategy to a naval commando mission he once undertook in stormy waters: chaos above the surface, but clarity and calm beneath. The key, he said, was to set a compass and swim directly toward the target.

.The recent strike was not a reaction, but a culmination. After years of preparation and restraint, after the erosion of Iran’s proxy shield, and in the face of an accelerated nuclear and missile program, Israel acted—decisively.

For Amidror, the lesson of October 7 goes beyond tactical success. “We must not allow threats to fully develop before we confront them,” he said. “That was our mistake with Hamas, with Hezbollah, and with Iran.”

Going forward, he argues, Israel’s security doctrine must prioritize early disruption over reactive defense. Waiting, he warned, carries too high a cost.

With the strike on Iran, Israel has not only disrupted a major threat—it has altered the regional balance and rewritten the assumptions of its adversaries. 

What once seemed like empty threats now appear as delayed inevitabilities. And a prime minister long doubted for his resolve has, after years of waiting, made his move.