Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s standing as “Mr. Security” suffered a serious blow in the wake of the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7. But one of the keys to that reputation has been his decades-long focus on the Iranian threat.

Now, after a reported limited Israeli strike in response to Iran’s weekend attack on Israel — the first direct Iranian attack on Israel in history — Netanyahu is being put to the test on his flagship issue.

Netanyahu has never made a secret of the priority he gives to the Iranian file, making several memorable speeches about it: at the U.N. General Assembly with a Looney Tunes-style bomb cartoon in 2012; when he infuriated then-President Barack Obama by giving a speech against the Iran nuclear deal before a joint session of Congress in 2015; and his 2019 presentation of the nuclear archive smuggled out of Iran by the Mossad, in a gambit to convince then-President Donald Trump to pull out of the Iran deal. But long before that, in 2002, he told Congress that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons and developing ballistic missiles that could reach the U.S.

One section of Netanyahu’s 2022 memoir, Bibi: My Story, illustrates how his position on containing Iran has trumped all else, including his long-held positions on other matters of national security. Netanyahu recounted a conversation in 2011 with his then-senior adviser and current Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer about freeing 1,027 Palestinian prisoners – including Yahya Sinwar, who currently leads Hamas in Gaza – in exchange for captive IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, despite Netanyahu’s past opposition to such exchanges. One of his arguments: “Do you see any other way to quickly gain the public support we’ll need for an operation against Iran?” 

His former chief of staff, Ari Harow, told Jewish Insider on Thursday that when the Obama administration pushed for a settlement freeze in 2010, “Netanyahu’s rationale for agreeing to the Obama freeze was Iran. I was in a meeting with him and the Yesha Council [umbrella organization of settlements], and he was able to tell them that while he doesn’t want to hurt [them], we have this existential threat we’re facing and we need Obama on our side.”

Israelis remember a turn of phrase that became an often-repeated political punchline after being used by Netanyahu in 2015. When asked about the cost of living at a press conference ahead of that year’s Knesset election, the prime minister said that the more important matter was “life itself.” And what he meant by “life itself” was that “the greatest challenge to our lives at the moment is Iran arming itself with nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu said. 

“Netanyahu prided himself on being the one to have identified [the Iranian nuclear threat] and brought it to the attention of the world at a very early stage,” Harow said.

Yet, since his return to the Prime Minister’s Office in 2022, Netanyahu has not pressed the Iran issue as aggressively, saying in mid-2023 that the Biden administration’s attempted “mini-deal” with Iran was “flawed…but it’s not quite as bad as the first thing,” meaning the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

The unprecedented Iranian attack last weekend primed the Israeli public for a strike back at the Islamic republic more than any domestic political policy Netanyahu has taken up in the past. But the Biden administration urged Israeli restraint, and Netanyahu’s coalition partners have mixed views on the matter. 

The extent of Israel’s Friday morning strike on Iran remains unclear, as does the possibility of a further escalation, though Israel’s Home Front Command stating there are no new safety instructions could be an indication of the IDF’s expectation that it would not.

Within Israel, the unfolding events shine a light on the Iran-focused message the prime minister has been broadcasting for over two decades. It comes amid growing Israeli skepticism over his record, following the Hamas attacks that happened on his watch.

To the question of Netanyahu’s legacy, Danny Danon, a former Israeli ambassador to the U.N. and current Likud lawmaker, pointed out to JI before Friday’s strike that “when Netanyahu is asked how he wants to be remembered, he says he wants his legacy to be that he was a defender of Israel. It’s something that is important to him.”

Harow argued on Thursday that if Netanyahu “uses this opportunity to attack Iran’s nuclear capability, or uses this [international] coalition to bring about regime change [in Iran], then he’s able to restore at least that piece of his legacy.”

However, Harow said that Netanyahu will most likely come out of this with his reputation further tarnished. 

“I don’t see [a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities] happening. The world is not ready to attack Iran,” Harow said. “I think [Netanyahu’s] legacy is still of someone [under whom] Oct. 7 happened and the greatest missile attack in Israel’s history happened on his watch as well, and I don’t necessarily see the type of response that he has spoken about for years. I think that legacy is harmed.”

Though the Islamic republic backs Hamas and even more so Hezbollah, which has been shelling Israel’s north for over six months, Netanyahu’s rhetoric focused more specifically on the terrorist organizations – until Saturday’s missile attack.

Now, Harow said, Netanyahu can “expand his vocabulary to include Iran in a way that gives us flexibility…If we deal with Rafah, that’s Iran; if we strike back at the Houthis, that’s Iran; if we do something in Iran, then that’s Iran. With two open immediate fronts [in Gaza and the Lebanon border] and the Houthis and militias in Iraq and Syria, I think he’s ultimately going to try to present it all as Iran.”

A day before Israel’s reprisal strikes on Iranian targets, Danon said, “It has to be a response that we see, that is very painful to Iran. The step they took was very public and very direct against Israel. We have to show that we’re hurting them – but show that we are not looking for a war.” 

Danon was circumspect about the prospect of a diplomatic solution of the kind Biden said he is seeking, saying it “depends on the content. If it has substance and will stop Iran’s race to enrich uranium and develop [nuclear] weapons,” then Israel may support it, “but if it’s just to check the box and say there’s an agreement, that’s very problematic.”

The Israeli public was split earlier this week on the question of a counterstrike against Iran. Direct Polls, a research company led by former Likud pollsters, shared data with JI from a survey taken this week that showed that 53% of Israelis favored a counterstrike on Iran despite American opposition, while 42% said Israel should not act. 

A Hebrew University poll meanwhile found that 52% of Israelis thought Israel should not attack Iran and 48% favored doing so; when asked if they supported striking back at Iran even if it undermines Israel’s security partnerships, 74% were opposed, while 26% were in favor.

Danon said of the poll numbers that “even if public sentiment is against it, Israel has to respond and Netanyahu knows it. I think in Likud and the right, the numbers are probably higher, but we need to ignore polls.”

Asked how the prime minister’s possible response to Iran or lack thereof would play to his base, Danon said that “the political matter doesn’t exist now in [Netanyahu’s] considerations.”

Direct Polls CEO Shlomo Filber, a former close Netanyahu ally, told JI that, “in general, the public has seen the Iranian threat as dangerous for years. There was a dispute over the years whether to attack militarily or [accept a] diplomatic solution, the American Iran deal.”

Politically, Filber pointed out that “Netanyahu constantly has opposition on the right who think that he is not aggressive enough, including in Gaza. It’s reasonable to think that could influence them with regard to the response to Iran.”

At the same time, Filber noted that “these are voters that will never vote for center or left-wing parties.”

Harow said that, for Netanyahu, there are “two sides to the Iran coin.” One is “the strategic threat, which from Netanyahu’s perspective was of historic proportions and the nuclear program is a potential existential threat to the State of Israel.”

The other side, Harow said, is that as indicated in the anecdote about the Yesha Council, the Iranian threat also had “a built-in political convenience for him. It’s always good for any politician to have an enemy. It allowed him to better navigate the domestic political minefield… From a political perspective, Iran is a convenient target.” 

When it comes to the current question of Iran and Netanyahu’s legacy, there are “hard-core supporters of Netanyahu under any and all circumstances,” but more broadly, “the damage has been done,” Harow said.

“I don’t see Likud voters who have questions [about Netanyahu] or moved away returning home with the way this is being handled at the moment,” he added.