The dust has barely settled on the US Iran ceasefire and preliminary peace agreement, but a new battle is already being waged, this time in the court of Israeli public opinion. According to a landmark poll conducted by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Agam Institute, an overwhelming 92.1 percent of Israelis believe that Iran emerged victorious from the conflict, with 82.9 percent stating that Israel's long-term security has been gravely weakened.
This near universal sentiment, shared even by 93.1 percent of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s own right wing base, exposes a profound disconnect between the government’s narrative of success and the population’s perception of a catastrophic strategic failure. The agreement itself is deeply unpopular, opposed by 63.2 percent of the public, and has triggered a crisis of confidence in the Prime Minister, whose approval rating has collapsed from 40.5 percent in early March to just 29.4 percent.
For the Israeli public, the bitter taste of defeat stems from the conviction that the war's outcome has not only failed to achieve its stated objectives but has actively reversed them. The agreement is widely viewed as a “catastrophic capitulation” that has left the country in a significantly more dangerous position.
At the heart of this sentiment is the belief that the US-Iran deal effectively allows Tehran to claim victory on nearly every front. The agreement accomplishes none of Israel’s key war aims, notably, the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program and its ballistic missile arsenal. Instead of regime change or a weakened leadership, the government in Tehran has emerged from the war “even more hard line and emboldened”. Furthermore, the requirement for American forces to retreat from Iran’s proximity is seen as a massive propaganda win for Tehran, allowing it to boast of having driven the US military out of the region. The deal also fails to address Iran’s support for its regional proxies, like Hezbollah, and crucially, it constrains Israel’s military freedom in Lebanon, effectively “handcuffing” it in a way that was not the case before the war.
The Israeli public sees the agreement as a strategic setback primarily because it grants Iran a powerful new source of leverage. Tehran has secured a commitment to a $300 billion fund for “reconstruction and economic development” and is set to gain significant sanctions relief, which critics argue will likely be funneled back into its missile programs and its network of regional allies. The nuclear issue, the existential threat that drove the war, was kicked down the road for later negotiations, while Iran’s regime remains firmly in place.
The strategic picture before the war was far from rosy, but it was defined by a degree of American alignment that has now evaporated. In the months leading up to the conflict, Netanyahu was repeatedly feted by Trump, meeting him seven times and receiving praise as a wartime “hero”. The relationship was so close that the US and Israel launched a joint military campaign, signaling a united front against Iran. Israel’s pre-war position was one of influence, able to shape the narrative and its military actions with the full backing of the world’s sole superpower.
Today, that picture is far bleaker. The US and Israel are no longer in lockstep, with the US deal being imposed against Israel's will. Israel has been relegated to the sidelines of the negotiation process that will shape the future of its region, watching as Tehran gains leverage over its most important ally. Instead of a weakened Tehran, Israel faces a regime that has survived a four month war, retained its bargaining power, and secured a path to sanctions relief that may leave it in a stronger position than many anticipated. The agreement’s requirement for Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon is a direct constraint on its security doctrine that did not exist before the conflict. In short, Israel has moved from a position of shared strategic purpose with the US to one of isolation and strategic constraint, a decline that has left the public feeling that the nation is in a weaker, more vulnerable position than when the war began.