In a pointed editorial, The Washington Post has warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against expecting U.S. military involvement in Israel’s escalating confrontation with Iran, asserting that since Israel chose the timing and nature of the current conflict, it should also be responsible for bringing it to a close. The editorial urges the United States to stay out of the fight and allow Israel to “finish the job” alone, framing it as a test of Israeli military independence and a necessary step for long-term regional stability.
While acknowledging the shared global concern over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the editorial makes clear that Netanyahu launched this military campaign unilaterally—reportedly against U.S. wishes. According to Israeli media, President Donald Trump had asked Netanyahu during a June 11 phone call to delay military action and allow time for renewed diplomacy. Nevertheless, Israel proceeded with its aerial assault, prompting Iran to cancel planned nuclear negotiations. The editorial suggests this sequence of events underlines that Israel, not the United States, instigated this escalation, and should therefore bear the burden of its consequences.
The piece emphasizes that Israel has its own military options, even without access to America’s Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs or B-2 stealth bombers. Israeli forces could target the entrances and support infrastructure of the Fordow nuclear facility to disable it, or, if necessary, send in special forces in a high-risk but not unprecedented commando operation—drawing parallels to Israel’s historic Entebbe raid in 1976.
Crucially, The Washington Post argues that Israel standing alone in this fight could restore its deterrent credibility, which suffered a blow following the devastating Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023. By demonstrating it can confront what it sees as an existential nuclear threat without direct U.S. involvement, Israel could reinforce its own security posture and regional reputation.
For the United States, remaining on the sidelines offers strategic advantages, the editorial contends. Avoiding military involvement would reduce the risk of Iranian retaliation against American forces or shipping routes in the Persian Gulf. It would also leave open the possibility of U.S.-led diplomacy with Iran once the dust settles. Trump, the editorial notes, appears to be weighing his options carefully, perhaps with an eye on brokering a long-term agreement that could stabilize the region and prevent endless cycles of conflict.
The editorial warns that while a failed Israeli campaign could embolden Iran and leave the U.S. with fewer good options, Washington is not yet facing that scenario. Instead, the piece calls for clarity: the United States should make it known that it will not intervene directly, placing responsibility firmly where it belongs—on Netanyahu and the government that chose to ignite this confrontation.
