‘If Iran gets a bomb it will be Bibi’s’: Trump’s deal outline sparks alarm in Israel | US-Israel war on Iran
When Donald Trump launched a preemptive war with Israel against Iran in February, many in the country hailed the campaign as the crowning triumph of Benjamin Netanyahu’s political and diplomatic career.
The reported circumstances, with the regime still in power in Tehran for three months and Trump seeking a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers, have sparked alarm, dismay and anger in Israel.
Nahum Barnea, one of the commentators who condemned both the agreement and the Israeli prime minister, wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth that “Israel is completely indebted to the decisions of a capricious, hollow and desperate American president.”
While describing Netanyahu’s strategy harshly before and during the campaign, which the USA called Operation Epic Rage and Israel called Operation Roaring Lion, he added, “The greater the anger, the greater the roar, the greater the defeat.”
“If the currently talked about agreement is signed, the damage will be even greater. The billions that will enter the regime’s pocket will go a long way.”
At the beginning of the war, Israel’s security elite warned that Netanyahu risked sacrificing bipartisan support in the United States, the country’s most vital foreign policy asset, for the sake of regime change in Iran and a boost to elections likely to be held by October.
Almost three months later, opinion polls in the United States suggest that a heavy blow to a decades-old legacy may be the conflict’s most lasting legacy for Israel.
Not only was Israel excluded from negotiations with Iran, but it was also not kept informed of its progress. New York Times. His government has had to resort to leveraging regional allies and their espionage networks spying on Iran’s leadership.
The deal negotiated by the Trump team could impose some restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, but there was broad consensus that they would be less restrictive than the deal Barack Obama’s administration reached in 2015.
Netanyahu criticized the agreement, officially known as the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA), in Washington DC at the time.
In his article in Ma’ariv, Ben Caspit said, “The resulting agreement is much worse than the previous one” and emphasized the risk that the consequences resulting from the war and ceasefire agreement could accelerate Iran’s nuclear program instead of destroying it, as Netanyahu promised. “If they [Iran] If you have a nuclear bomb, it will be Bibi’s bomb.”
He added that the killing of religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei eliminated the person who prepared the nuclear program, but also postponed the final stage of creating weapons.
Israel’s other concerns about going to war appear to be off the table at all, including its regional proxy network and its ballistic missile arsenal that has caused death and destruction throughout Israel.
Far-right members of Netanyahu’s coalition are now pushing him to challenge the US president over a partial ceasefire with Hezbollah in Lebanon, under pressure from Washington.
“It’s time for the prime minister to bang on Trump’s desk and let him know we’re back to war in Lebanon,” national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir wrote on social media on Monday.
Concerns about threats from Iran and its allies are likely behind polls showing strong support for Israel’s decision to go to war with Iran, even after weeks of missile attacks.
Immediately after the ceasefire, more than a third of Israeli Jews said they were very or somewhat unhappy about it, while just over a quarter said they were very or somewhat pleased that the fighting had stopped. according to Israel Democracy Institute.
However, with no sign of the regime change promised by Netanyahu, support for the government waned as the conflict dragged on.
Even in April, when Israel might have had more reason to be optimistic about continued U.S. pressure on Iran, Israelis remained disappointed with the government’s handling of the war. According to the same survey, just over a third rated the government’s performance positively.
Not all criticism was directed at Netanyahu, and not all those unhappy with the deal regretted the war, but Trump’s apparent outline of his plan found few supporters in Israel.
Ariel Kahana wrote in the Hebrew-language newspaper Israel Hayom: “To Trump’s credit, it must be said that he at least tried.” “The bold willingness of the United States to unleash massive firepower against Iran is dozens of times preferable to the historical incompetence demonstrated by all its predecessors.
“As a result, Iran can and continues to present a picture of victory to the world despite its standing. Trump has no such counter-picture to show of himself for now. This is not good news for the Israeli people.”
