E-Paper
Did Netanyahu sell US an ‘easy’ Iran war, misread Hormuz risks? Israel PM says ‘nobody had perfect foresight'
When asked whether Iran’s strategic use of the Hormuz Strait had been “misread at the beginning”, Netanyahu stopped short of admitting any intelligence failure.
More than two months into the Iran war, with ceasefire efforts repeatedly collapsing and tensions over the Strait of Hormuz continuing to dominate global concerns, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued clarification on a report that claimed he convinced the United States that a war with Iran would be easy and could trigger regime change in Tehran.
In a televised interview, Netanyahu insisted he had warned of risks from the start. Speaking to CBS’ 60 Minutes during an interaction with Major Garrett, Netanyahu was asked about a report published by the New York Times that described discussions in the White House Situation Room on February 11, days before the joint US-Israel strikes on Iran. Track US-Iran war live updates.
Netanyahu's version of Situation Room discussion
According to the NYT report, Netanyahu made a “hard sell” suggesting that “Iran was ripe for regime change” and a coordinated US-Israeli operation could finally bring down the Islamic Republic.
Responding to the claim, Netanyahu said, “No. That's actually incorrect… It's incorrect in the sense that I said, ‘Oh, well, it's guaranteed we can do it,’ and so on.”
The Israeli Prime Minister added that uncertainty had always been part of the discussion with US President Donald Trump.
“Not only did I note it. We both agreed, you know, that there was both uncertainty and risk involved,” Netanyahu said.
He maintained that while military action carried dangers, inaction posed a bigger threat. “There's danger in taking action. But there's greater danger in not taking action,” he told CBS.
Questions over Hormuz strategy
The moderator then referred to another part of the NYT report concerning the Strait of Hormuz, the critical global oil route that has remained at the centre of the conflict.
According to the report, Netanyahu and his team had pointed toward “certain victory”, arguing that the Iranian regime would be weakened to the point where it would no longer be able to choke off the Hormuz Strait.
Netanyahu struck a more cautious tone, saying, “I don't think we could quantify it exactly, but I think that the problem of the Hormuz Straits was understood as the fighting went on… It became understood,” he added.
When asked directly whether Iran’s strategic use of the Hormuz Strait had been “misread at the beginning”, Netanyahu stopped short of admitting any intelligence failure.
He said, “I'm not sure it was misread. But you know, there's a great risk for Iran to do it… I don't claim perfect foresight, and nobody had perfect foresight. Neither did the Iranians.”
Regime change claims remain contested
The remarks come as the Iran war continues with no clear end in sight despite multiple diplomatic attempts. Talks moderated by Pakistan have so far failed to produce a breakthrough.
Even the claim of Iranian regime change, touted by Trump after the US’ Operation Epic Fury reportedly killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several key leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), is being contested by Iran.
Tehran maintains that its government remains robust and that Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei continues to remain at the helm.
Another peace proposal collapses
Fresh diplomatic efforts also appeared to unravel on Sunday after a new Iranian proposal was rejected by Washington.
According to local media reports, Iran sent a proposal to the United States through Pakistani mediators demanding compensation for war-related damage and recognition of the Islamic Republic’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump dismissed Tehran’s response outright. “I have just read the response from Iran’s so-called ‘Representatives,’” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “I don’t like it.”
He later described the Iranian response as “TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE” even as both sides continued to observe what officials called a fragile ceasefire.
