In a strikingly defiant interview aired by ABC News of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on June 16th. He defended his country’s ongoing military strikes against Iran, portraying the campaign not only as a matter of national defense but as a moral obligation to humanity.
“This regime is the cult of death,” Netanyahu said, speaking from an undisclosed location. “We are fighting not only for our survival, but for the survival of civilization.”
The interview unfolded as a high-stakes message to global audiences, particularly to the President Donald Trump and his American support base. Netanyahu’s language, dense with metaphors, biblical allusions, and wartime absolutism, marked a deliberate return to a rhetoric of existential urgency. “We are not at the 11th hour, we are at the 12th,” he declared, warning of Iran’s advancing nuclear capabilities and its ballistic missile arsenal.
Although wartime leaders often refer to the public, their voices are rarely heard.
Throughout the interview, Netanyahu repeatedly referred to Iran’s Supreme Leader as a “modern Hitler,” linking Iran’s nuclear ambitions to a potential second Holocaust. He invoked Jewish historical suffering and framed the war as ‘good’ Israel and ‘evil’ Iran. “We are not going to put our neck to a nuclear knife,” he said.
He credited President Trump as “a great leader and a great friend of Israel,” while subtly pushing for more US military involvement. At the center of this diplomatic overture was a call for US assistance in targeting Iran’s Fordow nuclear site, deeply buried and resistant to conventional Israeli air power. He mentioned “people” between 18 and 20 times during his interview to seek their support. But whether people are buying his narratives?
We believe as Netanyahu declared the war as “Operation Rising Lion”, the real battle appeared to unfold in virtual spaces. In a deluge of public reaction that mirrored the geopolitical rifts and moral fissures within the global community.
The comment section under the interview, representing a digital chorus of global opinion, revealed three main groups of individuals. The first group, which was smaller in number, echoed Netanyahu’s language, hailing him as “a modern-day Churchill,” “a lion,” and “a leader raised for such a time as this.” Support poured in from conservative American voices, Indian nationalists, and Iranian dissidents who applauded Israel’s posture against what they saw as an oppressive regime.
Even among supporters, there were subtle notes of concern. Some expressed admiration for Netanyahu’s clarity but hoped that military action would be limited in scope. Others warned against overreach and the possibility of global fallout.
The second group, who were many, responded with criticism, cynicism, and anger. An overwhelming portion of the audience rejected Netanyahu’s framing while challenging both the moral premises and the political implications of his rhetoric. Some accused him of fear-mongering and manipulating historical trauma to justify military aggression. “The only country who dropped a nuclear bomb is telling another country they cannot have it,” one user remarked while encapsulating a common critique about perceived US hypocrisy. Another pointed out, “Iran has been two months away from a nuclear bomb for 30 years. We have heard this before.”
Another respondent quoted the point-blank congressional hearing of, Tulsi Gabbard, Director of the US intelligence.
Congressman: “Does Iran have nuclear weapons?”
Director: “No.”
Congressman: “Is Iran building nuclear weapons?”
Director: “No.”
Other commenters questioned Netanyahu’s silence on the plight of Palestinians and civilian casualties in Gaza. “He forgot to mention Palestinians,” one wrote briefly. Some went further, accusing him of deliberately deflecting attention from ongoing humanitarian crises in the occupied territories by redirecting the global attention towards Iran. “He is a war criminal and killed over 50000 civilians mostly women and children in Palestine alone”, one of the participants critiqued.
Still others expressed frustration with American media houses for not presenting the Iranian perspective, asking whether any Iranian officials would be interviewed to respond to Netanyahu’s claims.
These responses often cited the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as cautionary tales of where rhetoric of preemptive war can lead. The emotional texture of the criticism was diverse, ranging from moral outrage to weary sarcasm. “We are not doing this again,” one American wrote. “Israel is on their own.”
A third group expressed a more ambiguous or skeptical stance. Neither fully persuaded nor entirely opposed, they observed the performance with a mixture of suspicion and fatigue. “Good sales pitch, we are not buying it,” one commenter joked. “This guy sounds like a caricature of narcissism,” wrote another. Others mocked the dramatization of phrases like “America first? No, America dead,” questioning the emotional manipulation embedded in such statements. Some pointed out factual inconsistencies in Netanyahu’s references, such as the mischaracterization of bomb types or exaggerations regarding Iran’s missile capabilities.
The Prime Minister’s rhetorical strategy appeared especially tailored for an American audience, and specifically, for Trump-era Republicans wary of US entanglement abroad. In referencing Trump repeatedly, and borrowing slogans such as “Make the Middle East Great Again,” Netanyahu seemed to bypass traditional diplomacy in favor of ideological alignment. “He’s using their language,” noted Jonathan Karl after the interview.
The framing, casting Israel’s war as the world’s war, was precisely what many viewers rejected. Calls for American disengagement ran through the comment threads, often from conservative voices who otherwise support Trump but remain opposed to what they see as Israel’s attempts to draw the US into another Middle Eastern conflict. “This is not our fight,” one wrote. “Trump needs to hold firm.”
Analysts warn that such high-octane war rhetoric can carry unintended consequences. By invoking a civilizational struggle and demonizing the Iran in absolute terms, Netanyahu leaves little room for negotiation. This cannot only harden Iranian resolve but also alienate allies who prefer diplomacy over escalation. The danger, some observers suggest, is that in portraying war as morally necessary and divinely sanctioned.
As the bombs fall and the rhetoric rises, one thing is clear: Netanyahu’s version of this war is far from universally accepted. The battlefield may be in the skies over Tehran, but the contest for legitimacy is playing out across screens worldwide. When rhetoric races ahead of reality, who bears the cost?
Our analysis shows that people unequivocally desire peace and coexistence. Although wartime leaders often refer to the public, their voices are rarely heard. It is the people who suffer the consequences of one conflict after another, not the politicians and businessmen who historically profit from wars.
The first author is a Professor of English at Riphah International University, Lahore. He is a lead guest editor at Emerald and Springer publishing.
The second author is an Assistant Professor of English at Govt. Graduate College for Women, Samanabad, Lahore