Ce Grand Reporter Israélien est CONTRE la guerre en Iran. Il vous explique pourquoi.

In this geopolitical analysis, veteran investigative journalist Meron Rapoport discusses the implications of a potential war between Israel and Iran. Drawing from his thirty-year career, including his time as the news director at *Haaretz*, Rapoport argues that the current drive toward conflict is not only dangerous but fundamentally counterproductive to Israel's national interests. He frames the situation through the lens of the 1956 Suez Crisis, a pivotal moment when Israel acted as an imperial proxy for France and the United Kingdom. A striking insight Rapoport provides is the massive disparity between international and domestic Israeli public opinion. While skepticism of a war with Iran is high in the United States, polls suggest that 93% to 94% of Jewish Israelis favor military action. Rapoport warns that this consensus is the result of a decades-long effort by Benjamin Netanyahu to frame Iran as an existential, imminent threat that justifies a state of permanent mobilization. Despite the human risks, the Tel Aviv stock exchange continues to rise, driven by a defense industry that profits from showcasing high-tech missile and cyber capabilities to global markets. Rapoport identifies three primary political motivations behind Netanyahu’s push for war, rather than purely messianic ones. First, Netanyahu faces a looming election deadline in late 2026, or possibly sooner. His poll numbers have suffered, and he views a "victory" over Iran—or at least the significant weakening of the Islamic regime—as his only path to political salvation. Second, a war with Iran serves as a strategic distraction from the situation in Gaza. Netanyahu is desperate to avoid the "second phase" of the Gaza conflict, which would necessitate a partial military withdrawal and the return of some control to Palestinian entities. By escalating with Iran, he effectively sabotages any pressure to wind down operations in Gaza. Third, Rapoport explains that Netanyahu has successfully shifted the Israeli political logic toward "permanent war." By convincing the public that peace and negotiations with Palestinians are impossible, Netanyahu ensures that military force remains the only acceptable policy. This logic is so entrenched that Israeli leaders have already begun labeling Turkey as the "real" or "next" enemy. Rapoport notes that because the Iranian threat might eventually be neutralized, the leadership requires an even more formidable foe to justify perpetual conflict and the maintenance of a militarized society. While Netanyahu’s personal motives are political, he is supported by a messianic coalition. Figures like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir view the conflict through a religious, fundamentalist lens. Rapoport highlights Ben-Gvir’s policy of arming 300,000 civilians as a calculated move to incite tension in mixed cities and Jerusalem. The goal, according to Rapoport, is to provoke an Intifada that would provide the pretext for mass expulsions of Palestinians. This messianic influence is deeply concerning to the secular half of Israel, who feel increasingly like "strangers in their own country." This cultural rift has triggered a massive exodus, with approximately 250,000 Israelis—mostly liberal and secular—leaving the country in a single year. The comparison to the 1956 Suez Crisis is central to Rapoport’s warning. In 1956, Israel joined colonial powers to forcibly change the regional order, a move that ultimately failed and left Israel diplomatically vulnerable. For seventy years, Israel generally avoided acting as an imperial proxy, even staying out of the US-led Gulf Wars. Now, however, Netanyahu is returning to that imperial logic, attempting to create a "New Middle East" through force. Rapoport warns that if the Iranian regime does not fall, Israel will be blamed by the international community and its regional neighbors as the primary instigator of instability, jeopardizing its long-term diplomatic standing. The discussion also touches on the "Idiot Plot" theory—the idea that the conflict only continues because the actors are foolish. Rapoport disagrees, asserting that Netanyahu and his allies are highly intelligent but have successfully stripped the public of any hope for a peaceful future. When the paths to peace are blocked, the public is conditioned to accept war as the only reality. The host concludes the segment by reflecting on the broader eschatological and diplomatic dimensions. He notes that even US officials like Anthony Blinken, who has deep ties to the establishment, have historically resisted Netanyahu’s attempts to force the US into a war with Iran. Furthermore, the host points to a growing movement of anti-Zionist rabbis who argue that the state of Israel’s current path is a form of "idolatry" and a rebellion against God. They claim that the push for a "Third Temple" and the manipulation of religious prophecies for political gain are fundamentally at odds with traditional Jewish values. Ultimately, the transcript presents a grim conclusion: for the current Israeli leadership, peace is the greatest enemy. War serves as a political shield, a lucrative industry, and a tool for social control, even as it threatens the internal cohesion and international legitimacy of the state.