Political figures across Israel expressed anger on Monday following news of a provisional agreement between the U.S. and Iran. Many labeled it a disaster for Israel and focused their criticism on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As of Monday evening, Netanyahu had not issued a statement on the matter.
Political Reactions
Government officials, political rivals, and commentators quickly criticized the agreement, turning the situation into a sort of informal referendum on Netanyahu’s leadership ahead of upcoming elections. Additionally, the situation highlighted Netanyahu’s increasing isolation at home, in the region, and concerning the United States.
Critics argue that Netanyahu led President Donald Trump into conflict with Iran while overestimating achievable outcomes, resulting in Trump’s decision to withdraw from the conflict before Israel felt prepared. They claim Netanyahu misjudged Trump’s appetite for prolonged conflict and was outmaneuvered in negotiations by Iran.
The price of Netanyahu’s arrogance is being paid by Israel, weakening its position while Iran strengthens,” said former Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
Yair Lapid, a political challenger to Netanyahu, described the agreement as one of Israel’s most remarkable foreign policy failures. He expressed confidence in resolving the situation, stating, “Netanyahu can no longer fix it, but we will.”
Implications for Lebanon and Hezbollah
The U.S.-Iran deal complicates Israeli operations in Lebanon. After invading southern Lebanon due to Hezbollah missile attacks, Israel finds itself in a bind. Iran insists that any U.S.-Iran agreement must include a halt to Israeli hostilities in Lebanon.
As negotiations advanced, Trump’s frustration with Israeli actions in Beirut grew, warning that they could jeopardize the agreement. Ultimately, Trump opted to end the conflict with Iran even if it limited Israel’s actions in Lebanon, placing Netanyahu in a difficult position.
Hezbollah’s potential to provoke a response deepens Netanyahu’s challenges; the group’s strength gives it significant control over the region’s dynamics,remarked Daniel Shapiro, former U.S. ambassador to Israel.
Some members of Netanyahu’s coalition oppose the agreement and urge continuation of the Lebanese campaign, despite potential U.S. discontent. Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir emphasized, “We must not settle for less than dismantling Hezbollah.”
Unmet War Objectives
Israel’s campaign in Lebanon remains uncertain due to the agreement. Initially, the war aimed to break Iran’s nuclear ambitions. However, after Iran withstood an intense aerial campaign, it emerged in a stronger position. Key Iranian allies remain intact, retaining the ability to launch missiles at Israel.
Additionally, Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz affects global trade, raising essential commodity prices. The agreement’s impact on Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure remains unclear.
Israel believes the war delayed Iran’s nuclear program but didn’t alter its goals,wrote political commentator Anna Barsky for Ma’ariv.
Analysts suggest the U.S.-Iran agreement may also bring financial relief to Iran. Reports indicate it may involve lifting sanctions and releasing frozen Iranian assets, potentially strengthening Iran financially.
Yair Golan, a center-left party leader, criticized the agreement for favoring Iran financially and strategically, maintaining a threat to regional stability.