'Failure': Israel reacts with alarm as emerging US-Iran deal draws criticism

The emerging agreement between the United States and Iran to permanently end the war has been met with scepticism and growing alarm in Israel.

Reports over the weekend said the deal centres on a memorandum of understanding establishing a preliminary 60-day ceasefire, which reportedly does not address Iran’s nuclear programme.

The initial framework is also said to include ending wars “on all fronts”, including Lebanon.

The reported terms have drawn criticism from US Democrats, hawkish Republicans and Israeli commentators alike.

Amid mounting backlash, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that he had agreed with US President Donald Trump that “any final agreement with Iran must eliminate the nuclear threat”.

Netanyahu also said Trump had reaffirmed “Israel’s right to defend itself against threats on every front, including Lebanon”.

Trump, meanwhile, has defended the negotiations on his Truth Social platform.

“If I make a deal with Iran, it will be a good and proper one, not like the one made by Obama,” Trump wrote, referring to the 2015 nuclear agreement signed under former president Barack Obama.

“I don’t make bad deals,” he added.

'Failure'

But Israeli journalists and military analysts appeared unconvinced by the reassurances from either leader, with many portraying the emerging agreement as a political failure and a strategic climbdown by both the US and Israel.

Amos Harel, military affairs commentator for Haaretz, wrote on Monday that a deal would amount to an American capitulation and reflect Israel’s declining standing within the Trump administration.

Harel argued that the agreement falls far short of Netanyahu’s declared objectives when the war began in late February, including the collapse of the Iranian government and the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.

'Israeli interests were not taken into account throughout the negotiations'

- Senior Israeli security official

Danny Citrinowicz, an Iran specialist at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), echoed that assessment, saying the military campaign’s architects “did not truly understand Iran”.

“The enormous gap between the declarations made at the beginning of the campaign and the agreement that will likely bring it to an end illustrates its failure,” Citrinowicz said on Monday.

"This war proved that Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategy has collapsed.”

Raz Zimmt, also a researcher at INSS, described the proposed agreement as “very problematic” for Israel and argued that Iran had succeeded in shaping “a new regional order”.

"The one who blinked first was President Trump, not the Iranians," Zimmt told the 103FM radio programme.

Veteran political columnist Nahum Barnea of Yedioth Ahronoth wrote on Monday that the emerging deal would represent a “defeat” for both Israel and the United States.

He wrote that Netanyahu and Trump “never imagined” that after nearly three months, Iran would be in a better position than it was before the war.

Barnea added that Israel was now “subject to the absolute authority of a capricious, hollow, desperate American president” and argued that while Israel still faces the challenge of confronting Iran, “Netanyahu is the last person” capable of leading that effort.

Security officials alarmed 

The criticism comes amid growing concern in Israel over what many see as the country’s diminishing influence in Washington.

On Saturday, the New York Times reported that Israel had largely been sidelined from the ongoing negotiations by the Trump administration.

Meanwhile, Haaretz reported on Sunday that senior Israeli security officials were alarmed by the direction of the talks and warned that “Israeli interests were not taken into account throughout the negotiations”. 

Why Israel and the US were so deadly wrong about regime change in Iran

Read More »

According to the report, officials expressed frustration that despite Israel’s joint military campaign against Iran, Washington had failed to prioritise Israel’s security concerns.

The officials are now said to fear that a US-Iran agreement could place restrictions on Israel’s future military operations in Lebanon and Gaza.

Israeli news outlet Ynet also reported that army officials viewed the proposed agreement as “a bad agreement for Israel” and were deeply disappointed by its reported terms.

According to the report, the Israeli military had already been preparing for a renewed campaign against Iran and believed the agreement would fall short of its strategic objectives, potentially leaving Iran as a “nuclear threshold state”.

David Bitan, a member of the Knesset from Netanyahu’s Likud party, acknowledged on Monday that expectations in Israel at the start of the war had been unrealistically high.

Still, he insisted Israel had achieved significant gains during the 40-day conflict.

Asked about Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, Bitan said Israel would “have to deal with it again and again”, adding that he believed further rounds of conflict with Iran were likely every two to three years.