JERUSALEM — Israeli officials and analysts expressed widespread disappointment and concern following the announcement of a preliminary agreement brokered by President Donald Trump aimed at ending hostilities with Iran. The deal, revealed on Thursday, was perceived by many in Israel as a significant setback that fails to achieve key Israeli objectives in the conflict and may ultimately embolden Tehran.
Among Israel’s primary war aims was regime change in Iran, yet observers noted the opposite outcome. Despite initial strikes that targeted the Iranian leadership early in the conflict, Iran’s government is reported to have emerged more hardened and assertive. The agreement’s stipulation that U.S. forces withdraw from areas near Iran within 30 days was seen as a symbolic victory for Tehran, reinforcing the narrative that it had successfully expelled American military presence from the region.
The deal also drew criticism for its silence on Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support for proxy groups hostile to Israel, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. Israeli officials warned that tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief and potential reconstruction aid could be diverted to fund these capabilities, exacerbating security threats to Israel. Additionally, the agreement calls for Israeli military withdrawal from Lebanon, raising concerns that Israel’s operational freedom in that front will be restricted.
Perhaps most troubling to Israeli leadership was the postponement of substantive negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program—an issue Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently identified as an existential threat to the country. Netanyahu, addressing the deal briefly, underscored Israel’s continued commitment to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and vowed to maintain security measures in southern Lebanon, signaling resistance to withdrawing forces as dictated by the agreement.
Reactions from Israeli political and security figures ranged from guarded optimism among minor officials to harsh condemnation from former advisers and analysts. Yaakov Amidror, a former national security adviser under Netanyahu, described the agreement as one in which “the Americans are paying with cash and got, at the maximum, a letter of intent.” David Horovitz, editor of a prominent Israeli news outlet, labeled it a “catastrophic capitulation,” while analyst Nir Dvori compared it to an unforeseen disaster for which Israel was unprepared.
This sense of disillusionment extended beyond security circles to broader reflections on the strategic alliance between Israel and the United States. Israeli commentators and lawmakers grappled with President Trump’s conduct during the Group of Seven summit in France the day before, where he reportedly dismissed Netanyahu as a “very small partner” and questioned Israel’s handling of Hezbollah attacks. Trump also downplayed the missile threat from Iran, asserting that Iran’s possession of ballistic missiles was justifiable given that other regional actors held similar arsenals.
Within Israel, some voices suggested that Netanyahu’s longstanding strategy of relying heavily on personal rapport with U.S. presidents may have reached its limits amid Trump’s unpredictable leadership style. Pollster Dahlia Scheindlin noted that Netanyahu had gambled on managing the president’s capriciousness by careful and strategic maneuvering but appeared to have overestimated his capacity to control the dynamic.
The cumulative effect of these developments has left many Israelis reevaluating their country’s position following the Iran conflict and the prospects of future cooperation with the current U.S. administration. While Netanyahu reiterated Israel’s resolve to safeguard its security interests, the agreement marked a sobering moment of uncertainty and recalibration for the Israeli government and public alike.