Throughout the past four years, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has earned an undeserved reputation as being a belligerent and aggressive politician. In both Europe and the United States, he is considered a legacy of the prevailing neoconservative ideology in the early years of Bush. For the radical left and pacifists, Netanyahu is the black beast that threatens stability and peace in the Middle East. In other words, Netanyahu belongs to the family of hawks, of those willing to resort to armed action before exhausting diplomatic channels. However, going over his four years of government, we are forced to come to very different conclusions.

Take the last armed confrontation in Gaza, which has been one of the shortest conflicts in the history of Israel since the Six Days War in 1967. Contrary to popular belief, Netanyahu and his conservative Likud Party continually resisted to launch a major offensive. In fact, they came to support more than 800 rockets fired from Gaza before deciding to undertake major military action. During the last Gaza war (2009) conducted under the government of Ehud Olmert and his centrist Kadima party, Palestinian casualties reached 1400 but in the recent military operation ordered by Netanyahu, only 146 persons were killed. It should also be remembered that Olmert had previously carried out a military operation in 2006 against Hezbollah in Lebanon which killed 165 Israelis and 1.300 Lebanese. On this front, Netanyahu has avoided the use of force in responding to the provocations of sporadic rocket attacks by Hezbollah.

With regard to nuclear proliferation, Netanyahu may have used a harsh rhetoric and incurred countless threats, but his words have never been followed up by actions. Here Netanyahu has followed the script marked by Obama: allow time for diplomacy and economic sanctions to make an effect. Once again, this contrasts immensely with this philosophy maintained by his predecessor, Ehud Olmert. During the administration of moderate Kadima, Israel maintained a bolder attitude and did not hesitate in ordering an airstrike on nuclear facilities in Syria.

In other fields, Netanyahu has followed the line imposed by Washington and Obama: to maintain a passive attitude to the civil war in Syria, to avoid responding to terrorist attacks from the Egyptian Sinai and to maintain strict silence before the rearming -promoted by Obama himself- of the Saudi Arabian rival and other Gulf countries putting the Israeli military supremacy in this region at risk.

Netanyahu has proven himself to be a leader who is reluctant to resort to force and at the same time, seeks to avoid conflict with his allies. Many people in Washington and Brussels regret that the fact that when hope rises regarding a possible consensual solution to the Iranian nuclear dispute, Netanyahu sounds the war drums. This line of thinking holds that a more rational and less controversial leader would not block negotiations in Geneva. However, in light of the facts, they should be thankful that Netanyahu continues to head the Israeli government. His threats have not resulted in any specific military action against Iran nor does it appear to be likely in the near future. It seems to be that the Israeli prime minister has simply limited his role to that of playing "bad cop", and carries it out to perfection. Netanyahu threatens and Obama extends his hand; without the aggressiveness and firmness of the former, it is doubtful that Iranian authorities would shake hands with the latter. The danger lies in the possibility that Netanyahu's words fail to disguise the reality: that there is no credible military response to Iran's nuclear program and that his government is unable to enforce their threats. In short, the Israeli leader is no more than a dove speaking out like a hawk.

It may be that Netanyahu has abused his war rhetoric for too long. After years of warning Iran and threatening with military plans to destroy its nuclear program, the Israeli Prime Minister runs the risk of losing his credibility to both his voters as well as to the enemies of Israel. Indeed, this could be the reason that would push Netanyahu to move from simple words to military actions. It is for this reason that perhaps there is no one who desires tangible results between the U.S. and Iran more than Netanyahu himself does.