Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared Thursday that Israel and the United States were “winning” their military campaign against Iran, claiming the Islamic republic had been “decimated” and was no longer capable of enriching uranium or manufacturing ballistic missiles. The statements came nearly four weeks into the US-Israeli military offensive launched on February 28 and coincided with escalating Iranian attacks on critical Gulf energy infrastructure, creating widening divisions between Tel Aviv and Washington over military tactics and strategic objectives in the conflict.
Netanyahu’s confidence in battlefield success contrasted sharply with mounting international concern over energy market disruptions and the absence of any defined timeline for ending the war.
Netanyahu Outlines Alleged Iranian Collapse and Military Advantages
At a press conference in Jerusalem, Netanyahu presented an expansive assessment of Israeli and American military achievements. He asserted that coordinated strikes had destroyed Iran’s capacity to produce ballistic missiles and had eliminated uranium enrichment capabilities, cornerstones of Tehran’s defence infrastructure.
“We are taking action to destroy the industries that make it possible to build missiles. Iran no longer has the capacity to enrich uranium and manufacture ballistic missiles,” Netanyahu stated.
“We are winning and Iran is being decimated,” he added, projecting confidence in the trajectory of the conflict.
Netanyahu further suggested that leadership instability within Iran’s government could accelerate the conflict’s resolution. He referenced uncertainty surrounding Iran’s newly appointed supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of former supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in an Israeli airstrike on the war’s first day.
“I’m not sure who’s running Iran right now. Mojtaba, the replacement ayatollah, has not shown his face,” Netanyahu said.
The Israeli leader claimed Israel was actively working to exploit internal factions within Iran’s military and political leadership.
Key elements of Netanyahu’s military assessment included:
Destruction of Iran’s uranium enrichment and ballistic missile production capacity
Elimination of leadership cohesion within Iran’s government and military command structures
Strategic momentum enabling faster conflict resolution than international observers anticipated
Ongoing assessment of opportunities to deepen internal divisions within Iran’s power structure
Trump-Netanyahu Coordination and Strategic Disagreements
Netanyahu sought to frame the US-Israeli relationship as one of equal partnership and extraordinary coordination. However, his statements simultaneously revealed strategic tensions between Washington and Tel Aviv regarding military targeting and escalation thresholds.
When asked whether Trump had directed Israeli military operations, Netanyahu deflected the suggestion with characteristic bluntness: “Does anyone really think that someone can tell President Trump what to do? He didn’t need any convincing. I don’t think any two leaders have been as coordinated as President Trump and I. He’s the leader. I’m, you know, his ally.”
Netanyahu acknowledged that Trump had explicitly requested Israeli forces halt attacks on Iranian energy infrastructure. “President Trump asked us to hold off on future attacks and we’re holding off,” the Israeli PM stated, signalling compliance with American constraints on Israeli military operations.
However, Trump’s earlier public statements suggested he had not been informed in advance of Israel’s March 18 strike on Iran’s massive South Pars gas field, the world’s largest natural gas deposit. Trump indicated displeasure with the attack, stating: “We’re not doing that anymore.”
South Pars Strike Triggers Energy Market Shock and Iranian Retaliation
Israel’s attack on South Pars, which supplies approximately 70 percent of Iran’s domestic natural gas needs, sent shockwaves through global energy markets already vulnerable to Iranian chokehold over the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran responded with a coordinated assault on critical Gulf energy infrastructure, striking multiple targets across the region:
Qatar: Iranian missiles hit the Ras Laffan natural gas complex, the world’s largest liquefied natural gas facility. Qatar Energy reported “extensive damage” estimated at USD 20 billion in annual lost revenue, with repairs requiring five years
Saudi Arabia: A drone struck the Samref refinery in Yanbu, Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea port, forcing the Saudi government to warn it reserved “the right to take military actions” in response
Kuwait: Drone attacks ignited fires at the Mina Abdullah and Mina Al-Ahmadi refineries, combined capacity 800,000 barrels per day
Israel: An oil refinery in Haifa’s port was struck Thursday, with images showing substantial smoke emissions from the complex
Brent crude oil surged six percent to USD 119 per barrel before falling back to USD 110, while European natural gas prices rose nearly one-third. The market volatility reflected investor concerns over sustained supply disruptions in a strategically critical region.
Iran Threatens ‘Zero Restraint’ Against Future Israeli Strikes
Iran responded to Israeli operations with explicit threats of unrestricted retaliation. The military’s Khatam Al-Anbiya operational command issued a formal statement warning of “complete destruction” of Gulf energy infrastructure if Israeli attacks on Iranian facilities continued.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi escalated the rhetoric, declaring on social media there would be “ZERO restraint” if Iranian infrastructure was targeted again.
These declarations signalled Iran’s abandonment of measured responses and rejection of any limitations on counter-strikes against Israeli or regional targets. The stance represented a significant escalation in rhetoric matching the intensity of military operations.
International Concern Over Energy Disruption and Ceasefire Demands
Growing alarm over economic fallout prompted international diplomatic intervention. Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the Netherlands announced they would “contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz,” though specifics remained vague.
Both Rome and Berlin stipulated that any action would require a ceasefire as a precondition, acknowledging their limited leverage over ongoing military operations.
French President Emmanuel Macron condemned the “reckless escalation” and called for “direct talks between the Americans and Iranians,” proposing diplomatic channels as an alternative to continued military escalation.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer warned that “attacks on critical infrastructure risked pushing the region further into crisis” following consultations with Macron and NATO chief Mark Rutte.
No Timeline for Conflict Resolution Despite Strategic Divergence
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed Thursday that no formal deadline existed for concluding the war, though he asserted the campaign remained “very much on track.” He stated that President Trump would unilaterally determine when military objectives had been achieved and fighting would cease.
“It will be at the president’s choosing, ultimately, where we say, ‘Hey, we’ve achieved what we need to,'” Hegseth told a Washington news conference.
Hegseth also signalled that Congress might face requests for more than USD 200 billion in additional war funding, indicating Washington’s assessment that sustained military operations would require substantial fiscal commitment.
Strategic Analysis Highlights Gaps in Campaign Planning
Independent security analysts noted that energy attacks exposed fundamental divergences between Israeli and American approaches to the conflict. Danny Citrinowicz, senior fellow at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, characterised the campaign as drifting toward attrition warfare without clear strategic objectives.
“The conflict is drifting into a war of attrition with no clear signs of regime collapse in Iran,” Citrinowicz wrote. “The attacks underscored just how unstructured this campaign has become, lacking strategic clarity, long-term planning, and a defined end state.”
This assessment suggested that despite Netanyahu’s confident rhetoric, the US-Israeli offensive faced questions about its ultimate strategic purpose and method for achieving stated objectives.
Conclusion:
Netanyahu’s declaration of Iranian collapse contrasted with the reality of escalating energy warfare, mounting international concern, and absence of any defined conflict resolution timeline. While both Israeli and American leaders asserted military progress, strategic divergences over targeting decisions and conflict duration suggested the war remained in early stages with potentially prolonged duration. The energy attacks demonstrated that despite Israeli military advantages, Iran retained capacity to impose significant economic costs on regional and global interests, complicating calculations about conflict trajectory and ultimate resolution.
