Iran’s foreign minister, Araghchi, has publicly accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of attempting to pull the United States into a military confrontation with Tehran. Speaking on February 10, Araghchi framed recent Israeli moves and Netanyahu’s emergency visits to Washington as part of an effort to set a “Middle East war” tempo that he says some U.S. actors—most notably former President Donald Trump—have been willing to follow.
Araghchi went further, charging that Netanyahu is a supporter of war rather than diplomacy, and asserting that in the past two years Israel has struck seven countries in the region, with the latest action allegedly targeting U.S. ally Qatar. These claims are presented as Tehran’s interpretation of Israeli behaviour and are intended to portray Israel as systematically choosing military options over political engagement.
On the question of Washington’s stance, Araghchi offered a mixed read: while accusing Netanyahu of trying to enlist American forces, he also said his contacts in Washington suggested some U.S. officials are trying to avoid escalation and prefer diplomatic avenues. That apparent divergence—between Israeli pressure for kinetic responses and elements within the U.S. government seeking de‑escalation—underscores the contested nature of U.S. policy toward Iran and the region.
The remarks matter because they illuminate how Tehran seeks to shape international perceptions at a time of heightened tensions. By publicly calling out Netanyahu and naming Washington’s alleged role, Iran aims to deter further strikes, rally regional sympathy, and signal to audiences in Europe and the Gulf that it sees Israeli actions as the proximate cause of escalation. At the same time, Tehran must manage the domestic political consequences of appearing vulnerable to external pressure.
Beyond rhetoric, the episode highlights real strategic risks. Israel and Iran have engaged in covert and overt confrontations across the region for years, using proxy groups, cyber operations, and targeted strikes. Public accusations of attempted American entanglement raise the stakes: misperception or miscommunication between capitals could make a localized incident spiral into a broader confrontation, with implications for Gulf security, global energy markets and U.S. political calculations ahead of domestic elections.
For now, Araghchi cast recent attempts to draw in the United States as having failed, and he warned that repeating those tactics would lead to the same outcome. Whether that assessment holds depends on how much room Washington’s internal politics and allied calculations leave for restraint, and on whether either side is prepared to restore credible diplomatic channels to reduce the risk of unintended escalation.