Israeli opposition, coalition allies criticise US-Iran Peace Deal

JERUSALEM: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faced sharp criticism on Monday from both opposition leaders and members of his governing coalition following the announcement of a US-Iran agreement aimed at ending months of conflict, with critics describing the deal as a major strategic setback for Israel.

Opposition politicians accused Netanyahu of failing to safeguard Israel’s interests during the negotiations, arguing that the agreement was reached without sufficient Israeli involvement and could undermine the country's security posture.

Yair Golan, leader of the Democrats Party, said Israelis had awakened to an agreement between the United States and Iran that was negotiated “over Israel’s head”.

“This is the culmination of long years of failure,” Golan wrote on X, accusing Netanyahu of cultivating a false image as a guarantor of national security.

“Netanyahu is the man who, for years, sold the public a false image of ‘Mr. Security’ and in reality became the father of Israel’s greatest strategic failure in its history,” he said.

Golan further argued that Netanyahu’s promise of achieving “total victory” had ended with Israel’s adversaries emerging stronger while Israel’s deterrence capabilities had been weakened.

“Replacing him is not just a political necessity; it is an existential security imperative,” he added.

The criticism followed the announcement by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif that Washington and Tehran had reached an agreement after intensive negotiations, committing to an immediate and permanent end to military operations across multiple fronts, including Lebanon.

Former Israeli defence minister and Blue and White Party leader Benny Gantz also described the agreement as a strategic failure that could have long-term implications for Israeli security.

“The emerging agreement with Iran appears to be a strategic failure that will require Israel to engage in diplomatic, military and legal struggles in the coming years,” Gantz said in a post on X.

He stressed that Israel should not accept any arrangement that would restrict its freedom of military action in Lebanon or require withdrawals that could jeopardize the security of communities in northern Israel.

Criticism also emerged from within Netanyahu’s coalition government.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir insisted that the agreement would not bind Israel, emphasizing the country's sovereignty in determining its own security policies.

“Israel is not subject to the United States, and we are an independent and sovereign nation,” Ben-Gvir said, while expressing appreciation for Washington’s support.

He maintained that Israel should not compromise on its objectives regarding Hezbollah and argued against relinquishing territory captured during military operations.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich similarly denounced the agreement, describing it as harmful to both Israel and the broader Western alliance.

“The joint campaign achieved significant successes in weakening Iran, and these gains must not be squandered,” Smotrich said.

He argued that Israel would need to continue efforts to counter Iranian influence and ensure that Tehran never acquires nuclear weapons.

Regional tensions have remained high since late February, when US and Israeli airstrikes on Iran triggered a wider confrontation involving retaliatory attacks by Tehran against Israeli and regional targets.

A temporary ceasefire was reached in April through diplomatic mediation, and subsequent negotiations ultimately led to the framework agreement announced this week. The accord is expected to be formally signed in Switzerland next month, while discussions continue on outstanding issues, including the future of Iran’s nuclear programme and broader regional security arrangements.

The agreement has generated mixed reactions internationally, with supporters viewing it as a significant diplomatic breakthrough and critics warning that key security concerns remain unresolved.