There’s a quote I read recently that got me thinking.

It was from the former U.S. Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, who said: “Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, and it sits in a region vital to U.S. security.”

This analogy now sits at the axis of Saving America and Saving the World.

In other words, half the American consensus appears to be against the war, while the other half appear to actually believe Iran was days away from acquiring nukes, and that they were eager to use them.

If you believe the latter, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

For years, Prime Minister Netanyahu has been maneuvering our American friends closer to confrontation with Iran. We’ve seen this happen before. And unless Washington regains the balls to say “No,” the United States will be dragged into yet another war that has very little to do with them.

This isn’t alarmism—it’s the endgame of a decades-long strategy.

In his book Fighting Terrorism, Netanyahu argued that “the best defense against terrorism is a good offense,” and advocated for preemptive strikes against hostile states.

The implication was clear— the West must not only isolate these hostile states, but they must be the first ones to act militarily.

Since then, Israel has influenced or set the stage for the United States to support wars in six hostile states including Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Palestine, Lebanon, and Sudan. All except for one — the head of the snake, Iran.

Economist and U.N. Advisor Jeffrey Sachs argues this isn’t coincidental.

“Israel wants a bigger war,” he recently told Tucker Carlson. “It wants a war with Iran, and it is trying to pull the U.S. into as well.”

According to Sachs, Israel’s offensive isn’t about preemption or deterrence at all. It’s about a doctrine that sees peace as impossible unless Israel’s enemies are completely destroyed.

To be clear, I take no issue with Israel attacking Iran’s nuclear program if it means protecting the Israeli people—especially if it eliminates the Islamic regime and puts everyday Iranians in a position for change.

But to think that one week of precision strikes would dismantle the Islamic regime, and save the world, is hopelessly naive.

What I take issue with is Israel appealing for U.S. support after blindsiding them during negotiations, knowing how long—and catastrophic— this war will be.

Yesterday afternoon, moments before Iranian missiles already struck Tel Aviv, Netanyahu delivered a heartfelt message to the world, arguing that this is not Israel’s fight alone, but the world’s fight against terrorism.

"Our enemy is your enemy,” Netanyahu said. “And by doing what we're doing, we're dealing with something that will threaten all of us sooner or later.”

Let me tell you— a lie can travel across the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.

we should’ve seen it coming.

From Iraq in 2003 to Libya in 2011, from Syria’s collapse to the Saudi-led war in Yemen, the U.S. has repeatedly allowed itself to be pulled into regional conflicts under the banner of freedom and democracy—each time leaving behind more chaos and instability.

Unfortunately, Israel has been central to the framing of many of these conflicts, presenting itself as both forward scout and indispensable ally.

So why does the U.S. always go along?

The answer is more strategic—and more cynical—than most admit.

First, there’s the Cold War logic. Since 1967, Israel has been a reliable regional asset. It defeated Soviet-backed armies, provided intelligence, and served as a proxy of American strength.

Without Israel, the American position in the Middle East would collapse.

Second, the political machinery behind the U.S.–Israel relationship is powerful. Since 1976, Israel has been the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign aid—over $158 billion, including a $38 billion ten-year memorandum of understanding under President Obama. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) ensures that any questioning of this support becomes politically radioactive.

Finally, there is the ideational glue.

A deep, often unexamined cultural affinity between large parts of the American public and the Israeli state. Historian Walter Russell Mead calls it one of the most potent forces in U.S. foreign policy—a blend of Protestant Zionism and moral projection.

In Gallup polls, U.S. support for Israel regularly exceeds 60%, even when Israel’s policies violate international norms. That sentiment often overrides strategic logic. If you oppose the Israeli government, one teeters the line of being antisemitic.

In other words, like corporate America many see Israel as too big to fail.

But Iran is not Iraq.

Unlike Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or Gaddafi’s Libya, Iran is not internationally isolated. It’s a member of BRICS, maintains a strategic partnership with China, supplies drones to Russia, and has growing ties to India and Brazil. It signed a 25-year cooperation agreement with Beijing, and Tehran’s role in the multipolar world is expanding.

In terms of Iran’s nuclear program, their facilities are buried deep underground, ringed by Russian-supplied missile defense systems— beyond the reach of quick precision strikes.

In a full-on war with Israel, Iran has options.

Hezbollah in Lebanon has an estimated 150,000 rockets ready to fire on Israeli cities. Shia militias in Iraq and Syria could target U.S. personnel. The Houthis could hijack Red Sea shipping. And most perilously, Iran could target U.S. bases in Bahrain, Iraq, and Kuwait—triggering a wider war that the U.S. would almost definitely have to respond to.

Of course, Netanyahu knows this.

His argument is that war with Iran was inevitable. The red line had to be drawn. After all, Iran was days away from breakout capacity, and Israel just couldn’t afford to wait.

The hope—or maybe the exact calculation—is that if Iran retaliates against U.S. personnel, Washington will be forced to intervene.

It’s a well-worn maneuver, I have to say.

But I would also say the American people are tired of it.

On Threads, for example, a war veteran told me he lost his brother in Iraq— and for what? We “won” and got ISIS. We “liberated” Libya and got civil war. We demanded regime change in Syria and got a total humanitarian disaster.

Each war left its architects discredited, its logic disproven—yet each time, the United States jumps back into the ring hoping for a win.

The good news is that off-ramps exist.

Or at least they did last week.

The U.S. and Iran were negotiating a renewed nuclear deal. European intermediaries had a draft text on the table. A regional NATO-style security dialogue was being volleyed around. Verification mechanisms, enrichment limits, and proxy de-escalation might’ve been difficult, but that’s what diplomacy takes.

A real alliance does not mean automatic obedience. It does not mean bullying one into submission. It means shared communication, mutual restraint, and the capacity to disagree—even when it’s inconvenient.

To follow Israel into a war with Iran would be one of the biggest errors of foreign policy since the 2000s—and one for which the entire region, and the Americans, will have to pay for.

We remember those who launched wars. We rarely remember those who had the courage to stop one.

Now would be a good time to start.

The War Netanyahu Always Wanted

The Argument Starts Here