Israeli officials, military analysts, and politicians reacted with sharp criticism on Monday, May 25, after reports emerged that the United States and Iran are close to finalising an agreement to end their war. The proposed framework centres on a memorandum of understanding establishing a preliminary 60-day ceasefire, which reportedly does not address Iran’s nuclear programme. The backlash in Israel spans both the security establishment and the media, with critics arguing the deal falls far short of the objectives Israel set when the conflict began.
The initial framework is also said to include ending wars “on all fronts”, including Lebanon. That provision has deepened concern in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, where officials fear a US-Iran agreement could limit Israel’s future freedom of military action in both Lebanon and Gaza.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought to reassure the public on Sunday. He said he had spoken with United States President Donald Trump and that both leaders had agreed “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, for his part, 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,” he wrote, referring to the 2015 nuclear agreement reached under former President Barack Obama. “I don’t make bad deals,” Trump added.
The reassurances did little to quiet the criticism inside Israel.
Analysts Call It a Strategic Failure
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.
Danny Citrinowicz, an Iran specialist at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), said 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 also argued that while Israel still faces the challenge of confronting Iran, Netanyahu is “the last person” capable of leading that effort.
Security Officials Warn of Sidelining
The critical commentary from analysts is mirrored by alarm inside Israel’s security establishment. On Saturday, the New York Times reported that Israel had largely been sidelined from the ongoing negotiations by the Trump administration.
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.” 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.
Israeli news outlet Ynet 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.”
A Likud Voice Acknowledges Unmet Expectations
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. He insisted, however, that 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. The statement was a rare public concession from within the governing coalition that the war’s original aims had not been met.
Background
The US-Iran conflict broke out in late February 2026, with Israel joining the campaign against Iran. Netanyahu had set out ambitious war aims at the outset, including regime change in Tehran and the full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile infrastructure. The reported terms have drawn criticism not only in Israel but also from US Democrats and hawkish Republicans. Iran has maintained its nuclear programme throughout, and the proposed ceasefire deal does not appear to require its elimination. The 2015 nuclear agreement — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — was abandoned by Trump during his first term in office and was never revived under President Obama’s successors.
What Happens Next
Netanyahu and Trump are expected to continue consultations over the final terms of any agreement, with Netanyahu publicly insisting that Iranian nuclear dismantlement must be a condition of any deal. The proposed 60-day ceasefire, if finalised, would also require ending hostilities in Lebanon, a condition Israeli military officials have said they view with concern. Israeli security officials are now pressing Washington to ensure the agreement does not formally restrict Israel’s military options in Lebanon and Gaza. No date for a formal signing has been announced. The INSS and other Israeli security institutions are expected to publish further assessments as the terms of the agreement become clearer.
