In a revealing interview on Patrick Bet-David’s podcast this Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a striking assertion that has resonated throughout pro-Israel circles in America. When asked directly whether the horrific October 7 Hamas attacks would have occurred if Donald Trump had been president instead of Joe Biden, Netanyahu responded with a definitive “Probably not,” adding, “but it’s hard to say with these maniacs. I think Iran would have been more careful.”
The wide-ranging interview, titled “Israel’s Fighting YOUR War,” saw Netanyahu make several bold statements that underscored the strategic differences between the current and previous US administrations. Beyond the October 7 discussion, Netanyahu also made headlines by becoming the first Israeli Prime Minister to explicitly recognize the Armenian Genocide, telling the Armenian-American host Patrick Bet-David: “I just did” when pressed on the issue.
In the hard-hitting interview, Netanyahu didn’t mince words about Israel’s broader strategic situation. He “contrasted Trump’s support with Biden’s arms embargo threat over Rafah invasion,” making clear that such policy differences have real-world consequences for Israeli security operations.
The Prime Minister’s candid assessment went beyond just the October 7 attacks. Throughout the conversation, Netanyahu emphasized that Israel is essentially fighting a proxy war for American interests in the region, declaring that “Israel’s fighting YOUR war” against Iranian-backed terror groups that threaten Western civilization.
When podcast host Patrick Bet-David directly asked if the Hamas attacks would have happened if President Trump was President instead of Biden, Netanyahu’s unequivocal “Probably not” response reflected a strategic calculation based on deterrence theory and regional power dynamics.
Netanyahu’s assessment echoes Trump’s own prediction made in February, when the former president declared that “the horrors of October 7th would never have happened if I were president; the Ukraine and Russia disaster would never have happened if I were president. The weakness and incompetence of [the Biden] years” had caused “grave damage around the globe, including in the Middle East.”
These words now carry the weight of tragic vindication. The October 7 massacre—the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust—claimed over 1,200 Israeli lives and saw hundreds taken hostage by Hamas terrorists. The question that haunts many is whether this catastrophe could have been prevented under different American leadership.
The contrast between the two administrations’ approaches to Israel couldn’t be starker. The Biden administration’s handling of Israel’s war against Hamas has been marked by a series of decisions that many view as constraining Israel’s ability to defend itself effectively. Netanyahu contrasted Trump’s support with Biden’s arms embargo threat over Rafah invasion, highlighting how such public pressure undermines Israeli military planning and emboldens enemies.
Despite the Biden administration’s expressed objections to launching a military action in Rafah, the IDF entered Rafah in May 2024, eventually recovering the bodies of six hostages and rescuing Qaid Farhan Alkadi, a Bedouin Israeli.
Most notably, President Biden threatened to “halt shipments of American weapons to Israel” if Prime Minister Netanyahu ordered “a major invasion of the city of Rafah.” This ultimatum came despite Rafah’s critical strategic importance as Hamas’s final stronghold and the location of key tunnel networks used for smuggling weapons and launching attacks.
Israel reacted “with a mix of concern and fury” to Biden’s warning, recognizing that such public pressure from their closest ally provided encouragement to their enemies. The message sent to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran was unmistakable: America would restrain Israel’s military operations even in the midst of an existential conflict.
Perhaps even more damaging was the Biden administration’s failure to protect sensitive Israeli military intelligence. The US found itself investigating “a leak of highly classified US intelligence about Israel’s plans for retaliation against Iran”—a security breach that potentially compromised Israeli operations and endangered lives.
The FBI launched an investigation into the leak just “two weeks before the Nov. 5 elections,” but the damage was already done. For Israel, fighting a multi-front war against Iranian proxies, such intelligence leaks represented not just bureaucratic failures but potential death sentences for soldiers and civilians.
The clearest indication of how America’s adversaries perceived the change in administration may have come from Iran itself. Reports suggest that the Biden administration sent signals to Tehran indicating that America would not respond militarily to missile attacks on Israel, coupled with “Biden’s inexplicable recent unfreezing of billions in Iranian assets.”
These policies created what critics describe as “significant daylight between America and Israel, emboldening not just Hamas but also Hezbollah and Iran, making a major Middle East war far more likely—precisely what the Biden team sought to avoid.”
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies has documented Trump’s dramatically different approach, noting his backing of “increased Israeli military pressure on Hamas to free hostages and end the Gaza war.” Throughout his previous term, Trump consistently demonstrated that American support for Israel would be unconditional and unwavering.
This approach extended beyond mere rhetoric. The Trump administration’s policies—from moving the US embassy to Jerusalem to recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights—sent clear messages about American commitment. More importantly for deterrence purposes, they signaled to Iran and its proxies that any attack on Israel would be met with full American backing for Israeli retaliation.
Netanyahu’s assessment that “Iran would have been more careful” under Trump speaks to a fundamental principle of international relations: deterrence works when adversaries believe there will be serious consequences for their actions. The October 7 attacks succeeded not because Hamas was particularly strong, but because Iran and its proxies calculated that the risks of massive retaliation were manageable under the current American administration.
As Netanyahu emphasized in the Bet-David interview, the Iranian regime’s calculations are heavily influenced by their perception of American resolve. When asked about the difference between administrations, he made clear that Iran’s willingness to activate its proxy forces depends significantly on how they assess American support for Israeli retaliation.
This calculation proved tragically accurate. While Israel has fought valiantly and achieved significant military victories, it has done so while constantly looking over its shoulder at American demands for restraint, ceasefire negotiations, and threats of arms embargoes.
For pro-Israel Americans, Netanyahu’s comments serve as a sobering reminder of how presidential leadership affects global stability. The choice between projecting strength and projecting restraint isn’t merely philosophical—it has real consequences measured in human lives.
As America looks toward future elections and foreign policy decisions, the October 7 attacks stand as a stark example of what happens when deterrence fails. Netanyahu’s words on the Patrick Bet-David podcast weren’t just political commentary; they were a strategic assessment from a leader who has witnessed firsthand how American weakness emboldens America’s enemies—and Israel’s enemies—to act with impunity.
The question for American voters who care about Israel’s security is straightforward: Do we want a foreign policy that deters attacks through strength, or one that manages conflicts after they’ve already begun? Netanyahu’s assessment suggests the answer may determine whether future October 7ths can be prevented—or whether they become tragic recurring events in a world where American weakness invites aggression.