Yossi Schwartz ISL (RCIT section in Israel/Occupied Palestine) 17.07.2026
Even Avner Zacko, a historian of science who writes for Haaretz, confirms our claim that the United States is a sinking power, and so is Israel. (“תמה ההגמוניה האמריקאית” published in Haaretz). He may have illusions that replacing Netanyahu will save Israel, but the next government, likely headed by Eisenkot, will not have different politics.
Why did Benjamin Netanyahu rule Israel for so long? Netanyahu’s career coincided almost exactly with the era of the unipolar world, in which the United States was the sole superpower in the world.
Netanyahu’s most important quality was his ability to work with Washington. Netanyahu grew up in America, mastered its language and knew its political culture inside out. He turned this advantage into his political identity. When he presented himself as someone who “knew America” or that was the advantage given to him by the unipolar world order. Netanyahu became, more than any previous anointed head, an extension of America in Israel
After the collapse of Russian Stalinism, the United States became the sole superpower. This allowed it to make mistakes and crimes without its position being undermined.
The unipolar world granted the US the rarest privilege in international politics: the right to be wrong. Without changing the balance of power. Therefore, the US could wage protracted wars, maintain hundreds of military bases around the world, and provide Israel with unqualified support, even when it did not align with American interests.
The special relationship between Israel and the United States was also a product of that world order. The strategic alliance was built gradually since Israel’s victory in 1967, with the delivery of Skyhawk aircraft in 1968, and the airlift of military aid in the 1973 war. During those years, the power of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington, AIPAC, also reached its peak. This did not happen because the lobby had changed, but because it operated within an international system in which the United States gave the right almost unlimited support without paying a strategic price for it. (This was the period when Zionism took over the Jews of the Middle East. Being a Zionist in the United States was a sign of privilege.)
Netanyahu’s policy was based on that reality. He succeeded in pushing for the US to withdraw from the nuclear agreement with Iran. His speech to Congress in 2015, delivered without the consent of President Barack Obama and contrary to the administration’s position, was a political gamble that paid off in the short term.
Netanyahu linked Israel to the conservative and religious camp in the US, where currents of white nationalism and racism, as well as anti-Muslim sentiment, were growing, and he risked success on his part in an open confrontation with the first black president in US history, because he assumed that the strategic alliance between the two countries was strong enough to withstand the growing polarization within the United States.
The Trump administration adopted Netanyahu’s positions and withdrew from the nuclear agreement, joining Israel in the failed war against Iran.
But today the conditions that made Netanyahu the most suitable leader for the United States have ceased to exist. The war with Iran has demonstrated that the United States is a declining power, that America no longer has the room for maneuver it had for three decades. Robert Kagan, a thinker most identified with American neoconservatism and the idea of American hegemony, wrote the title “Met in Iran” for an article he published after the war in The Atlantic magazine. More than an admission of defeat in the war, it was a recognition that the unipolar moment was over.
Washington’s weight has been dramatically reduced against the new realists China and Russia. Every American failure in the Middle East weakens the United States in the competition with Beijing and Moscow for energy markets and the global balance of power. What’s more, Iran’s victory cannot but exacerbate the class struggle, not only in the United States itself, but especially in the semi-colonial countries
The irony is that the very war intended to contain Iran is ending as Iran moves closer than ever to the status of regional hegemon in the Persian Gulf.
The special relationship with Israel, the great power of the pro-Israel lobby in the US, and Netanyahu’s rise to power were expressions of that world order. This world order is ending. And Netanyahu’s expected downfall is part of this plan by the United States. It is likely that Netanyahu will be replaced by Eisenkot, whose policy will not be fundamentally different from Netanyahu’s and will bring the end of Israel closer.