The decision by President Trump to make a peace deal with the Iranian regime stunned world leaders and sent Israel’s politicians into a tizzy. The details of the agreement have not been officially released yet, but the deal reportedly includes a ceasefire for Israel in Lebanon and perhaps a withdrawal, one that was negotiated without Israel’s involvement.

Trump’s Signature, Netanyahu’s Humiliation

The strike in Beirut’s Dahiyeh district was intended to preserve Israel’s deterrence vis-à-vis Iran and perhaps even derail their negotiations with Washington. The result was the opposite: Trump accelerated the talks, signed an agreement and left Netanyahu facing the greatest diplomatic failure of his political career—one that could ultimately bring it to an end.

On Sunday afternoon, Israeli Air Force jets struck a Hezbollah command center in the heart of Beirut’s Dahiyeh district, the organization’s main stronghold in Lebanon. The strike was carried out in response to Hezbollah rocket fire into Israeli territory and in accordance with the policy announced by Prime Minister Netanyahu, under which any Hezbollah attack on Israel would be met with strikes against targets in Dahiyeh. Israel proceeded with the strike despite Iran’s attempts to establish a counter-deterrence equation of its own, under which an Israeli attack on the Lebanese capital would trigger a direct Iranian response against Israel.
According to an IDF spokesperson, the targeted facility served as a command center for Hezbollah’s communications network. The statement said that the strike was carried out “in response to Hezbollah fire directed at Israeli territory” and “in accordance with the instructions of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yisrael Katz.”
In line with the deterrence framework publicly outlined by Tehran, Iranian officials announced after the Israeli strike that missiles would be launched at Israel. Israel’s security establishment immediately placed air defense systems on high alert and began preparing offensive contingency plans for a possible retaliatory strike against targets in Tehran.
Within Israel’s political and security echelons, some believed that the strike in Beirut was driven by broader considerations extending beyond the defense of Israel’s sovereignty: an attempt to disrupt the advanced negotiations between Iran and the United States over a memorandum of understanding that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and address the Iranian nuclear issue. The assumption was that an Israeli strike would provoke an Iranian response, which in turn would trigger further Israeli retaliation—as had occurred only a week earlier—thereby delaying an agreement that was already on the verge of being signed. Instead, the outcome was precisely the opposite.
Fearing a rapid slide into direct confrontation, President Trump moved to accelerate negotiations with Tehran. In exchange for Iranian restraint and a commitment not to retaliate militarily, he reportedly showed a willingness to compromise on provisions that he had previously presented as non-negotiable red lines.
As of this writing, the full details of the memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States remain unclear. One thing, however, is already evident: judging by the jubilant reaction in Tehran and Netanyahu’s prolonged silence on the details, the deal is not good for Israel.
Finance Minister Betzalel Smotrich went so far as to describe it as “a bad deal for Israel and for the entire free world.” According to Smotrich, “We will have to continue the campaign to bring down the regime on our own and through creative means, while ensuring that Iran never acquires nuclear weapons.”
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir was equally blunt in his criticism. “Trump’s agreement does not bind us,” he declared. “Israel is not subordinate to the United States. We are an independent and sovereign nation. Let us be clear: we love America and are grateful to President Trump. At the same time, the State of Israel is not a banana republic.”
Beyond revealing how senior cabinet ministers view the agreement, these statements also reflect a blatant attempt to distance themselves from what many on the Israeli right perceive as a strategic failure and to pin the responsibility squarely on Netanyahu’s shoulders. Whether they will succeed in doing so remains doubtful, given that the same ministers granted the prime minister virtually unlimited political backing throughout the Iranian crisis.
Opposition MK Avigdor Lieberman captured this sentiment succinctly: “Had this agreement been signed under our government, Netanyahu would have accused us of treason.”
It is difficult to imagine a more humiliating conclusion to Netanyahu’s decade-long campaign against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.