An emerging peace agreement between the United States and Iran has triggered a wave of criticism in Israel, with political rivals, government officials and commentators accusing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of leading the country into a costly conflict without achieving its core objectives.
The backlash erupted after details of an interim U.S.-Iran agreement began to surface, raising concerns in Israel that the deal could limit its military operations against Iran and Hezbollah while leaving key security threats unresolved.
Speaking on Monday, Netanyahu insisted Israel would continue acting to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
“As long as I am the prime minister of Israel, it will not happen,” he said.
The Israeli leader also stressed that the agreement was negotiated by Washington and not Jerusalem, adding that he had resisted Iranian demands for an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
“I stood very, very firm,” Netanyahu said.
But critics across Israel argue that the prime minister has been outmanoeuvred diplomatically and strategically.
Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak accused Netanyahu of misreading U.S. President Donald Trump’s intentions and overestimating what the war could achieve.
“Iran emerged stronger; Israel emerged weaker. That is Netanyahu’s strategic responsibility. He failed,” Barak said.
Opposition leader Yair Lapid also condemned the agreement, describing it as one of the greatest failures in Israeli foreign and security policy.
The emerging deal has left Israel facing difficult choices, particularly in Lebanon, where military operations against Hezbollah remain popular among many Israelis.
Iran has long insisted that any settlement with Washington must include an end to Israeli military activity in Lebanon. However, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz has vowed that troops will remain in the country.
The disagreement places Netanyahu in a delicate position: maintaining close ties with Washington could require scaling back military operations, while continuing the campaign risks straining relations with Israel’s most important ally.
Analysts warn that even limited attacks by Hezbollah could increase domestic pressure on Netanyahu to respond forcefully, potentially threatening the fragile agreement.
Critics also argue that the war has fallen short of its original goals.
Israel and the United States launched strikes against Iran in February with the stated aim of curbing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Nearly four months later, questions remain over the extent of damage to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and missile programme.
Meanwhile, Iran has retained influence in the region and continues to wield leverage over the Strait of Hormuz, a vital global shipping route.
Reports that the agreement could include sanctions relief and the release of frozen Iranian assets have further fuelled criticism in Israel, with opponents warning that fresh financial resources could strengthen Tehran.
As elections approach later this year, the debate over the Iran deal is increasingly becoming a referendum on Netanyahu’s leadership, exposing growing political divisions at home and signs of strain in Israel’s relationship with Washington.
