Israeli political leaders have condemned a US-brokered ceasefire deal with Iran as a major strategic failure, accusing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of being sidelined in negotiations that directly affect Israel’s national security.
US President Donald Trump announced a two-week pause in US-Israeli military operations against Iran to pursue a long-term resolution based on a 10-point Iranian proposal. The plan reportedly includes Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of its uranium enrichment program, lifting of international sanctions, and cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including Israeli strikes on Lebanon.
Netanyahu’s office issued a statement supporting Trump’s decision while asserting that Israel would continue its military campaign against Hezbollah, the Iran-aligned group in Lebanon.
Opposition leader Yair Lapid, head of the centrist Yesh Atid party, described the development as an unprecedented political disaster. “Israel wasn’t even at the table when decisions were made concerning the core of our national security,” Lapid wrote on social media. He accused Netanyahu of failing politically and strategically, failing to achieve any of his stated objectives.
Former Deputy Economic Minister Yair Golan, leader of the Democrats party, called the outcome a “total failure,” claiming Iran emerged stronger from the conflict. Avigdor Liberman, head of Yisrael Beytenu, warned that any peace agreement under the proposed terms would only lead to future conflict.
The United States and Israel launched an unprovoked bombing campaign against Iran in late February, openly declaring intentions of regime change and halting Iran’s nuclear program. The conflict resulted in thousands of casualties and severely disrupted global energy supplies, largely due to Tehran’s effective closure of the strategic Strait of Hormuz.
The ceasefire pause has intensified debate within Israel over the government’s handling of security policy and its relationship with Washington, with critics arguing that Israel’s exclusion from key negotiations represents a dangerous erosion of its strategic autonomy.
