Capitulation for Thee but Not for Me
The U.S. retaliates against an Iranian strike, Trump questions Netanyahu's re-election, and more.
It’s Wednesday, June 10 and due to the rapid pace of events in the region, we are postponing the next installment of our “Ten Commandments of Israeli Politics” series. Developments permitting, we will release Commandment III next Wednesday.
U.S. Marines load onto a Venom Helicopter to conduct aerial sniper and close air support training while transiting regional waters. (CENTCOM/X)
Donald Trump gave Iran an inch, and they took a mile.
Mere hours after a ceasefire halted the exchange of fire between Iran and Israel, a U.S. helicopter patrolling the coast of Oman was shot down by Iranian forces. Once the intelligence confirmed Iranian guilt, Trump abruptly shifted gears, declaring a U.S. retaliation an absolute “necessity.” It was quite the sudden epiphany. After spending Monday morning demanding Israel turn the other cheek, it took just twelve hours for him to discover that sovereign nations don’t survive by capitulation.
The U.S. carried out a series of strikes on air defense systems, ground control stations, and radar sites near the Strait of Hormuz. In response, the IRGC claimed to have launched strikes on 21 targets at U.S. bases in the region, including sites in Bahrain and Jordan, while Kuwait’s army reported intercepting a separate attack.
But why did Iran target the helicopter in the first place? The answer lies in how Tehran operates on both a strategic and tactical level.
Strategically, the regime clearly has no issue with using military aggression despite the supposed “ceasefire.” Recent statements from senior officials and regime-affiliated media reveal that Tehran believes it is still actively at war. They view military action as a necessary lever to improve their negotiating position and advance broader objectives. Even the supposedly “moderate” Iranian Parliament Speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, bluntly stated that military force and diplomacy are complementary tools—where violence creates favorable conditions on the ground so that diplomats can extract “legal, political and economic achievements” at the table.
Tactically, this strategy manifested directly in the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. Navy relies on helicopters to intercept Iranian drones and fast-attack craft, opening the possibility of free passage through the vital waterway. By downing a U.S. gunship, Tehran is attempting to deter the U.S. from protecting commercial vessels and forcing the international community to comply with Iran’s maritime protection racket.
The retaliatory American strikes sparked a fierce internal debate in the regime. Behind closed doors, Iranian leadership seriously considered taking out their anger over the U.S. bombardment by launching a strike against Israel.
The IRGC pushed hard for retaliation, but the political echelon balked. The politicians understood that redirecting their fire at Israel could invite an immediate Israeli counterstrike—one they feared wouldn’t stop at air defenses and petrochemical facilities but place their core energy infrastructure in its sights. For the time being, the political echelon’s caution has prevailed, validating the age-old rule of deterrence that Trump only relearned on Monday night: tit for tat.
Israeli Prime Minister and head of the Likud party Benjamin Netanyahu arrives for a Likud party meeting at the Knesset, 2024. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)
Last night, Trump cast public doubt on Benjamin Netanyahu’s political survival, openly floating the possibility of the prime minister’s resignation. Speaking to ABC, Trump declared Netanyahu’s political future an “open question,” asking dismissively: “Does he want to continue? Because, you know, he’s a wartime prime minister.” The jab from his once-effusive American ally comes at a moment of profound domestic weakness for Netanyahu, with a recent poll showing that over 60 percent of Israelis do not want the longtime premier to run in the upcoming Knesset elections.
The official response from the Likud to Trump’s comments left no room for interpretation: “Netanyahu will run in the upcoming elections—and, with God’s help, he will win.” As those close to the premier once noted, Netanyahu’s car has only one gear: forward.
Yet, despite this current political slump, history must record the facts. Netanyahu was not the first to talk about Iran, and certainly not the only one. But he has been the most consistent leader in Israel, and in the entire world, in focusing attention on the danger. He did this in the face of heaps of mockery and accusations that the Iranian threat was just a political spin. Above all, he is the one who led the IDF, together with the United States, twice within a year, to cripple the most severe existential threat to the State of Israel. Therefore, he is absolutely and rightfully entitled to full credit for this historic alliance.
However, this leaves a lingering question: what will Netanyahu do now that his domestic standing is fractured and his public credit is dissolving? If what Trump proclaimed to ABC News holds true—that “we will very shortly win the war one way or the other”—then Netanyahu’s life’s mission regarding Iran is on the verge of completion. With that monumental task potentially behind him, his insistence on running faces a harsh law of politics: when it comes to elections, you don’t get votes for completed missions—only for future problems.
Children play in a public bomb shelter in the Nahlaot neighborhood of central Jerusalem, June 8, 2026. (Chaim Goldberg/Flash90)
When a person wakes up in the middle of the night to an early warning alert, what do they think about? I, for example, had a panic attack about the real threat—another month without schools and day cares.
When we talk about war, everyone imagines something different. Most Israelis, for example, are not afraid of getting physically hurt at all—only 37 percent are primarily bothered by this concern. The rest worry, in descending order, about the economic impact (28 percent), the closure of schools and kindergartens (14 percent), and an upcoming vacation abroad (11 percent). Apparently, no one is bothered by the Iranian nuclear threat.
It is fascinating to see how reality shapes consciousness. Men are much more worried about taking an economic hit than women (34 percent compared to 22 percent). The same is true for young adults under the age of 30. People between the ages of 30 and 49 are mostly afraid of getting stuck at home with the kids, whereas among the older population, the primary concern is the fear of being hit by a missile or falling shrapnel.
On this particular issue, there actually isn’t a significant fundamental difference between coalition and opposition voters, Jews and Arabs, or secular and religious individuals. If a difference exists, it is rooted instead in family and financial status. Here, finally, is something in Israel that isn’t political.
This is an excerpt from my weekly column in Israel Hayom
English Editor: Ari Tatarka
If you enjoy the newsletter, you can show your support by becoming a paid subscriber—it really helps keep this going. I’m also offering a special monthly briefing for a small group of premium members. I’d love to have you join us—just click below to find out more.
Thanks for reading It’s Noon in Israel! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
There is the apolitical universal brotherhood of mankind when it comes to dreading what its like to be stuck at home with young kids for long periods.
No mention of what obviously is the most concerning aspect of the incident: the replacement cost of one Apache helicopter and all of its upgrades and weapons systems approaches $100 million. The cost of one shahed: perhaps $20000.
The failure of the US to learn the lessons of the Ukraine war is an unpublicized scandal. Its costly military has proven inadequate to the tasks of opening the straits or defeating Iran.
O mention of the report that the US released 3 billion in frozen Iranian funds so that it wouldn’t launch missiles against Israel. Any info on that. I read that the source of the story was Israeli.