Israel backs US-Iran ceasefire but Netanyahu’s war goals remain unfulfilled

Israel backs US-Iran ceasefire but Netanyahu’s war goals remain unfulfilled

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, initially expressed confidence in the Israeli-US military campaign against Iran when it began in late February. However, the tone of his office’s statement acknowledging the ceasefire announced overnight revealed a more cautious stance, emphasizing that the decision was primarily driven by President Donald Trump. A notable contrast emerged between the triumphant declarations from the United States and Iran, both of which asserted significant victories after five weeks of hostilities. Despite the operation being labeled a success by Netanyahu, he clarified that the ceasefire did not signal the conflict’s conclusion, with Israel still having unmet objectives.

Unfulfilled Objectives and Ongoing Threats

At the outset, Netanyahu stated the campaign aimed to eliminate the “threat from the Ayatollah regime in Iran” and would persist “as long as necessary.” Yet, this vision remains unachieved: Iran’s armed forces continue to operate, and its clerical leadership remains intact, although Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other high-ranking figures have been eliminated through US-Israeli strikes. The nuclear program and enriched uranium stockpile remain unresolved, while Iran’s missile arsenal, though weakened, has persisted in targeting Israel throughout the war.

“The army did everything they asked of it, the public displayed incredible resilience, but Netanyahu failed politically, failed strategically, and did not meet any of the goals he himself set.”

Missile alerts and explosions echoed in Jerusalem even after Trump’s ceasefire announcement, with the Israel Defense Forces reporting multiple Iranian-launched missiles. Netanyahu’s failure to achieve his stated aims has drawn criticism, including from Anshel Pfeffer, a seasoned Israeli journalist and biographer of the prime minister. Pfeffer noted Netanyahu had only referred to a “suspension” of hostilities, rather than fully endorsing the war’s end. He warned that the prime minister’s lack of public acceptance of the ceasefire could lead to “some kind of rift opening up with the Americans,” as Israel’s influence in the agreement appeared limited.

“Netanyahu promised Israelis that this campaign would lead to the end of the Islamic regime, that by cutting the head of the snake, this war would remove an existential threat from Israel.”

Shira Efron, Israel policy chair at the RAND Corporation, argued the war was a “hard” sell to the public because regime change and the elimination of Iran’s nuclear threat were not realized. She pointed out that while missile capabilities were reduced, the program still exists, and the impact on civilian safety was minimal. Conversely, Yossi Kuperwasser, a former Israeli military intelligence official and director of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, claimed the “practical achievable goals” were fully met. He stated that Iran’s nuclear and missile production infrastructure was damaged, and its leadership was “decimated.” However, “wishful goals” like regime collapse, which were unattainable, were causing lingering doubts about the operation’s ultimate impact.

With an election year in Israel, Netanyahu faces the risk of losing power within months. Critics argue his strategic and political shortcomings have left the nation vulnerable, despite the military’s efforts and the public’s endurance during the conflict.