A political firestorm erupted in Israel on Thursday following the bombshell New York Times report that President Donald Trump blocked a proposed Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities—igniting a fierce round of finger-pointing, denouncements, and accusations of political cowardice at the highest levels of Israeli leadership.

Opposition Leader Yair Lapid led the charge, accusing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of repeatedly freezing in moments of strategic urgency. “Back in October, I proposed a strike on Iran’s oil infrastructure,” Lapid declared. “Netanyahu was afraid—and stopped it.”

While Israeli officials reportedly had a fully developed plan to carry out the attack in May 2023, pending U.S. coordination, the operation was ultimately shelved as the Trump administration veered toward diplomacy with Tehran.

Lapid’s remarks were quickly echoed—and escalated—by Netanyahu’s right-wing rival, former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who suggested that Netanyahu himself may have been behind the leak to the Times.

“This is classic Netanyahu,” Bennett said. “Threaten, threaten, threaten—and then leak that you were stopped by someone else. It’s theater. Dangerous theater.”

Bennett warned that Israel may not get another chance to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “There won’t be another such opportunity. And this pattern of threats with no follow-through is a dangerous illusion.”

The debate has quickly crystallized into a referendum on Netanyahu’s place in the lineage of Israeli leaders who have confronted existential nuclear threats with decisive action.

Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Liberman also blasted Netanyahu. “I read the entire New York Times leak,” he said, “and I thought how lucky we were that during the bombings of the nuclear reactors in Syria and Iraq, Netanyahu was not prime minister.”

Liberman was referencing the legacy of former prime ministers Menachem Begin and Ehud Olmert—each of whom ordered airstrikes to neutralize emerging nuclear threats from Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007, respectively. Both operations were carried out without U.S. approval, and both were hailed as turning points in Israeli strategic doctrine.

Labor MK Naama Lazimi joined the chorus of criticism from the opposite end of the political spectrum, accusing Netanyahu of both strategic paralysis and historical failure.

“Not only did he miss every opportunity to strike Iran—he’s responsible for the fact that Iran is now on the cusp of becoming a nuclear state,” Lazimi charged.

According to the Times report, Israeli officials were prepared to launch a military operation designed to set back Iran’s nuclear breakout capability by at least a year. The proposed plan reportedly relied on U.S. involvement to help execute the strike and shield Israel from an inevitable Iranian counterattack.

But after months of deliberation and internal division, Trump’s advisers reportedly advised against the operation. Tehran, they argued, had shown signs of willingness to negotiate.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has remained publicly silent on the report. But within his coalition, Likud MK Tally Gotliv attempted to tamp down the outrage, suggesting that patience—not paralysis—was the true strategy.

“Attacking Iran is not a matter of yes or no—it’s a matter of timing,” she wrote on X. “What I know, the Prime Minister knows. Patience is not a dirty word. Neither is vigilance.”

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)