Meron Rapaport – Middle East Eye June 18, 2026

Israelis are viewing the emerging US–Iran deal as more than just a diplomatic breakthrough between Washington and Tehran.

For many in the country’s political and military elite, the agreement to end the war represents a strategic turning point that could weaken Israel’s regional influence, strain its most important alliance and accelerate the political decline of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Although an agreement between the US and Iran had been widely anticipated since April, Pakistan’s announcement on Sunday that a deal had been reached sent shockwaves through the country.

There’s still a lot of questions about the terms of the agreement that are yet to be answered, but Israel’s political and military establishment did not expect the joint US-Israeli campaign against Iran to end this way.

When Netanyahu initiated the war against Iran on 28 February, Israel’s objectives appeared clear: dismantling Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes and bringing about the collapse of the Iranian government.

Almost four months later, none of those goals has been achieved. Instead, Iran appears to be in a stronger position than it was in February.

The country still retains its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, while its leadership appears to have emerged strengthened despite the blows Israel inflicted, including the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Iran also increasingly appears to be emerging as a regional power, with Arab Gulf states aligning themselves more closely with Tehran than with Israel.

Israel, meanwhile, finds itself in a position it has not experienced in decades, with many Israelis feeling more isolated than ever before.

A sense of isolation had already been growing over the past two and a half years as Israel’s campaign in Gaza led to boycotts of Israelis around the world.

But the situation now appears different.

Following Pakistan’s announcement of the deal, Israel increasingly seems isolated even from the US, with reports pointing to a growing rift between Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump.

For many Israelis, any fracture in the country’s relationship with Washington is viewed as an existential threat. Israel’s security doctrine has long rested on its alliance with the US.

Members of the government and senior military officials alike appear uncertain about the implications of the emerging US-Iran agreement, scrambling to adapt to a rapidly changing strategic landscape.

Netanyahu’s growing isolation

With elections expected in Israel in the coming months, the agreement could also carry significant domestic political consequences for Netanyahu, whose coalition continues to trail in opinion polls.

Speaking at a news conference on Monday, Netanyahu claimed that Israel had prevailed in all of its recent conflicts, pointing to what he described as major achievements in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran.

He also maintained that, had Israel not acted against Iran in June 2025 and again in February, Tehran would have obtained a nuclear weapon.

“All of you were in grave danger of mass death,” Netanyahu told Israelis watching on television, adding that “we saved the State of Israel from annihilation.”

According to Netanyahu he was not really in danger, only Israelis faced annihilation.

Such rhetoric only deepened the prime minister’s disconnect from the public.

Netanyahu presented himself as a legendary leader standing above events, rather than as a politician accountable to voters.

The emerging agreement, however, could have profound consequences for his political future.

While Netanyahu’s coalition currently polls between 50 and 53 seats in the Knesset, the impact of the agreement has yet to be fully reflected in public opinion.

Even so, if current polling trends are borne out at the ballot box, Netanyahu would be far from securing the parliamentary majority needed to form a government.

It remains unclear whether the agreement will include provisions requiring Israel to end its military presence in southern Lebanon, or whether Trump could pressure Israel to withdraw without such a clause.

For Netanyahu, however, Lebanon already represents a political vulnerability. Opposition parties have seized on the emerging US-Iran deal to attack him, focusing not on the decision to wage war itself but on the way the conflict has been conducted.

An Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon could mark the beginning of the end of Netanyahu’s tenure as Israel’s longest-serving prime minister. Former army chief Gadi Eisenkot has been gaining momentum in opinion polls and increasingly appears to be a leading contender to replace him.

This week may prove to be a turning point in the race to become Israel’s next prime minister.

Netanyahu is increasingly portrayed as a leader engaged in multiple open-ended conflicts without a clear strategy or end goal. His apparent disputes with Washington have reinforced an image of growing isolation.

Eisenkot, on the other hand, is increasingly viewed as a more measured and responsible figure capable of making decisive choices about Israel’s wars.

That contrast could prove decisive in the next election.

A deeper challenge?

Regardless of the impact on Netanyahu’s political future, the emerging US-Iran agreement presents a far more significant challenge for Israel itself.

The deal calls into question Israel’s reliance on overwhelming military force as its primary means of addressing regional challenges, often at the expense of diplomatic initiatives.

Israel’s military establishment, which under Netanyahu has played a central role in implementing this approach, is at great shock from the deal.

Solving problems through power is not a new feature of Israeli policies, but since it launched its genocidal campaign in Gaza, military power has increasingly become the dominant tool through which Israel has sought to achieve its objectives.

Before October 2023, Israeli military leaders generally maintained a broader strategic outlook. Since then, the army – particularly under Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir – has increasingly abandoned this way of thinking and has nothing to offer to the government and the Israeli public other than complete destruction in order to boost deterrence.

While senior officers reportedly continue to advocate for further military operations across the region, recent actions such as Israel’s attack in Beirut’s Dahieh district may ultimately carry strategic costs.

If Israel is compelled to withdraw from Lebanon, it would deal a significant blow to the prestige of an army that has become a major political actor that constantly pushes for war.

Although Netanyahu and his far-right allies, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, are often portrayed as driving Israel toward prolonged conflict, the military’s role in shaping these policies receives far less attention.

The emerging deal could challenge not only the military’s approach but also Israel’s broader method of managing its affairs throughout the Middle East.

Netanyahu, perhaps more than many of his political rivals, appears to understand the potential implications.

If the agreement ultimately leads to an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon under Iranian pressure, while a new regional alignment involving Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey takes shape, the consequences could extend well beyond Lebanon.

Such changes could also affect developments in Gaza.

At a moment when Israel appears weakened and increasingly isolated from Washington, Iran and its regional partners may seek to push for changes in the enclave similar to those they are demanding in Lebanon.

States such as Qatar and Turkey could also seek concessions from Washington in return for maintaining close ties with the Trump administration rather than moving further towards Iran and China. Such concessions could involve changes to Israeli control over Gaza.

It happened in 1991 when the US “rewarded” Arab and Muslim states for participating in the Gulf War by supporting Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at the Madrid Conference.

An isolated Israel

A similar dynamic could emerge again, even if it takes a different form.

Both Gaza and the occupied West Bank could become central issues in the near future.

While opposition figures accuse Netanyahu of damaging Israel’s special relationship with the US, repairing that relationship may prove more difficult than many assume.

A trip to the White House alone may not be enough to reverse Israel’s changing strategic position.

For that reason, it’s entirely possible that Israel will refuse to withdraw from Lebanon – even if Trump demands it, risking a deeper rupture with Washington.

On Wednesday, Yinon Magal, a leading journalist with Channel 14 News who is widely regarded as close to Netanyahu, suggested a possible name for Israel’s next military operation against Iran: “A people dwelling alone.”

Like the story of the Jewish rebels at Masada, the phrase reflects a vision of Israel fighting its battles independently, even without the support of its most important ally.

Israel possesses formidable military capabilities, including a powerful air force and a nuclear arsenal. For the foreseeable future, it is capable of enduring regional isolation because of its military superiority.

Standing alone and defying even the US president could become a central theme of Netanyahu’s election campaign.

He may seek to present himself as the only leader willing to resist international pressure and defend Israelis from external threats.

But if Israel does not follow the path of isolation that Netanyahu appears to be advocating, this week could ultimately be remembered as a watershed moment.

Israel could find itself forced to accept foreign dictates, not only in Lebanon, but also in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Source