The Cost of Netanyahu’s Wars

By Sir Ronald Sanders

(Kaieteur News) – When the two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran was announced on 7^th April, 2026, the immediate reaction across much of the world was relief. By 8^th April, that relief was reflected in a sharp fall in oil prices after weeks in which conflict had shaken energy markets, threatened Gulf States, and unsettled the wider global economy. Markets moved quickly, but they were only registering a deeper reality. People everywhere prefer peace to war, stability to fear, and development to destruction.

Sir Ronald Sanders

That instinct has been plainly at odds with the conduct of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, whose political course has been one of widening conflict, not containing it.

It is important to recognise, that the regime of the Ayatollahs in Iran has been deeply repressive toward its own people. Recent United Nations reporting and human rights organisations have documented severe restrictions on freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, arbitrary detention, persecution of women, girls and minorities, and the excessive use of force against civilians and protesters. At the same time, it is well established that Tehran has long provided material backing to both Hezbollah and Hamas as part of its regional strategy against Israel.

No fair-minded account can ignore the horror of Hamas’s attack on Israel on 7^th October, 2023. That attack was murderous and indefensible.

But what followed in Gaza has long ceased to be explicable as a proportionate exercise of self-defence. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed, including great numbers of children, and vast areas of Gaza have been reduced to ruin. Whatever military claims Israel has made about Hamas using civilians as cover, the resulting devastation has been immense and morally indefensible in its scale.

Nor has the violence been confined to Gaza. Israel’s government has also pursued a harder line in the occupied West Bank while massively escalating operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Even as Washington and Tehran moved towards a truce on 8^th April, Israel launched its heaviest strikes yet on Lebanon. The United Nations condemned the casualty reports as “appalling”, and Volker Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, described the destruction and deaths as “horrific”.

The day the United States-Iran ceasefire was announced, many hoped the region might be stepping back from a wider war.

It is regrettable that there appears to be continuing disagreement over whether Lebanon was covered by that ceasefire. Israel and the United States have said that Lebanon was not part of the arrangement, while Iran and a number of other governments have taken the contrary view. What is clear is that Israel continued bombing Lebanon after the ceasefire was announced. According to Lebanon’s Civil Defence, at least 254 people were killed, and 1,165 others were wounded in the attacks on 8^th April, alone. These attacks have placed further strain on an already fragile truce. Recent analysis has described Israel as digging in for a “forever war” through buffer zones in Gaza, Syria and Lebanon.

It is in that context that Netanyahu’s conduct must be assessed. Chatham House has said plainly that he has taken a bet that war will improve his chances of political survival in Israel. Recent reporting has also noted that, with the halt in attacks on Iran, Netanyahu’s corruption trial will resume, and that his coalition is predicted to lose the October elections. The reasonable conclusion is that the prolongation and widening of conflict have served Netanyahu politically, even as they have damaged Israel strategically and morally.

This also explains why the broader confrontation involving Iran appeared to offer political advantage to Netanyahu. A regional crisis provided diplomatic cover, widened military latitude, and shifted international attention. It created space for continued operations in Gaza and Lebanon and reduced immediate pressure for restraint.

It is difficult to argue that this course enjoys broad international support. Public language may be measured, and some governments may be silent, but growing unease and widespread alarm at the scale of civilian suffering are evident across the world. The gap between formal diplomatic caution and underlying global sentiment has become increasingly clear.

In many parts of the Caribbean, we have lived a unique experience. Jewish communities have been part of Caribbean life since the seventeenth century, and Lebanese communities have also been established in the region for well over a century. They have lived among us and contributed to our societies without religious or communal clashes between them becoming a feature of Caribbean life.

That equilibrium matters. We have no desire to see it disturbed by hostilities imported from the Middle East. Our own experience affirms that people of different histories, faiths and traditions can live together in peace, and that hard-won balance should be protected.

The peoples of the world understand something that ideologues too often ignore. War consumes lives, distorts priorities, and robs whole societies of a future. The market reaction to the United States-Iran ceasefire was only the most visible sign of a deeper human instinct. People want resources devoted to human development, not destruction.

The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu. The Court states that the warrants concern alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including starvation as a method of warfare, murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. These are not findings of guilt. But they do represent a judicial determination that there are reasonable grounds to believe that such crimes had been committed.

In more normal circumstances, such a development would have triggered far-reaching diplomatic consequences. That it has not done so to the full extent reflects the realities of contemporary geopolitics rather than any absence of concern.

The destruction of Gaza, the spread of conflict beyond it, the global disruption it has caused, and the loss of tens of thousands of lives point to one unmistakable conclusion: these wars have not strengthened Israel. They have diminished it morally, weakened it diplomatically, and made its long-term security more uncertain.

(The author is Antigua and Barbuda’s Ambassador to the US and the OAS and Chancellor of the University of Guyana.  The views expressed are his own.)