The biggest casualty of the US-Iran deal may not be Israel's strategy on Iran, but the political brand that Benjamin Netanyahu has built over decades as an Israeli leader who could uniquely bend Washington to his will on Iran, analysts, former US officials and diplomats say.
Netanyahu has built his political identity on a bold claim: that he alone can keep the US and Israel in a strategic relationship on Iran. Cultivating Republican support, he presented himself as the only Israeli leader capable of influencing successive U.S. presidents and insisted that only sustained military pressure could contain Tehran.
At the height of his power, he was described by diplomats as the Israeli leader who could pick up the phone and ensure that Washington’s strategic calculations were aligned with Israel’s. No other Israeli prime minister, they note, has addressed Congress so frequently, nor built such lasting political capital throughout the American political system.
But analysts say the interim agreement between Washington and Tehran to end the war, which the United States and Israel initiated in February, shows how that narrative has been turned around. Instead of shaping Washington’s policy on Iran, Netanyahu is now forced to accept it as U.S. President Donald Trump seeks a deal that increasingly treats Israeli objections as constraints.
The domestic reckoning is just as stark, said former U.S. official Dennis Ross. Netanyahu is increasingly squeezed between a U.S. president determined to end the conflict and a domestic base that resists concessions, especially in Lebanon, he noted. Withdrawing risks a political backlash, while escalation risks confrontation with Washington.
The war that Netanyahu hoped would cement his legacy as a leader who stood up to Iran may be remembered as the conflict that shattered the central source of his power. Isolated abroad, constrained by his closest ally, and vulnerable ahead of fall elections, he now finds that the political asset he built his career on has become his biggest obstacle.
At the start of the war with Iran, Netanyahu promised a final victory. It brought neither the collapse of Iran’s ruling system, nor the defeat of Lebanon’s Hezbollah, nor the safe return of the inhabitants of northern Israel.
"The U.S.-Iran deal is a decisive blow to Netanyahu," said Aviv Bushinsky, a former Netanyahu adviser. "Not only did he lose the war with Iran, he also lost Trump as a friend. Now he is not only isolated internationally, but he is in a serious dispute with Trump," he said.
Netanyahu’s office did not respond to a request for comment. At a press conference this month, the Israeli prime minister described his relationship with Trump as one between partners who "often agree and sometimes disagree." He said there had been a systematic campaign to downplay Israel's "tremendous achievements" against Iran and its proxies.
A White House official said Trump and Netanyahu had a strong relationship and that the Israeli military had been "incredible partners" in a war that had "destroyed the Iranian regime's military capabilities."
A State Department official said the United States maintained an "ironclad" stance commitment to Israel's security, stressing that "that doesn't change".
The official added that Israel reserves the right to defend itself, especially against Hezbollah, "a terrorist organization that threatens its citizens and undermines the Lebanese government", and cannot be expected to withdraw from Lebanon until that threat is removed.
Normalization and regional integration remain top priorities for the Trump administration, the official added.
According to analysts, the disagreement between the US and Israeli leaders extends beyond personal ties and is becoming a growing divergence in goals: Trump seeks to withdraw from another war in the Middle East, while Netanyahu sees continued pressure on Iran and its ally Hezbollah as essential to Israel's security.
Washington is negotiating directly with Tehran, including the conflict in Lebanon between Israel and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah has also created mechanisms to manage ceasefire disputes, moves that three regional diplomatic sources say are increasingly distancing Israel from key decisions.
The country that once considered Netanyahu an indispensable ally now, according to regional sources, treats him as an obstacle to an agreement it is determined to protect.
Trump has publicly denounced Israel's military conduct in Lebanon, while Vice President J.D. Vance has stressed the conditional nature of the relationship, warning Israeli critics of the deal not to "attack the only powerful ally they have left in the world".
Two Israeli officials familiar with Netanyahu's thinking said he was not concerned that public statements by Trump and Vance would lead to significant changes in U.S. policy toward Israel, such as a slowdown in arms sales even if Israel continues its military operations in Lebanon.
Trump has signaled that he is willing to disregard Israeli priorities in pursuit of U.S. interests. In a television interview this month, he said that if he tells Netanyahu to “do something, he does it.”
Iran will seek to widen the emerging rift between the United States and Israel by portraying any Israeli military action in Lebanon as an attempt to sabotage Trump’s diplomacy, forcing the White House to choose between supporting its ally and preserving the deal, said Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group.
According to American analysts, what makes Netanyahu’s position so precarious is the loss of his safety net.
For years, he cultivated Republican support, using it as a counterweight to offset tensions with Democratic administrations and openly condemning former President Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal with Iran from the congressional rostrum. But Republicans will not part with Trump for Netanyahu, they insist.
In this context, the implications of the US-Iran deal extend to Netanyahu’s core strategic stakes. He has staked his political future on two goals: weakening, if not overthrowing, Iran’s theocratic leadership, and securing normalized relations with Saudi Arabia by expanding the Abraham Accords.
Neither has happened. Iranian leaders have emerged from the conflict more firmly entrenched in their positions, while reconciliation with Saudi Arabia remains elusive.
A readjustment is already evident across the region. The countries Netanyahu once hoped to bring closer — with Saudi Arabia as the jewel in his crown — are now playing it safe, delaying normalization with Israel while cautiously reopening channels with Tehran.
According to Gulf sources, the logic underlying the Abraham Accords has been eroded by the war in Gaza, the unresolved issue of West Bank annexation and the growing perception that Israel under Netanyahu could be more of a liability than an asset in any emerging regional order.
An Iranian official said Netanyahu’s drive to expand the Abraham Accords has been weakened, with several countries now seeking a place in an emerging framework tailored to Iran.
"This is not just a victory for Iran. This is a failure for Netanyahu," the official stressed. The Islamic Republic has not just survived - it has emerged as a more influential regional player.