German media outlets continue to criticize Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the United States, in recent days, announced that it had reached an understanding with Iran. According to analysts, this move paves the way for sharp revisions to Netanyahu’s policies, as he has weakened Israel’s position both on the international stage and in the region. Most commentators agree that Netanyahu has been betting on a war with Iran and its allies in order to restore his image as Israel’s guarantor of security. However, the newspapers write, the agreement between Washington and Tehran is a strategic rollback that has undermined his political clout—especially after the war failed to achieve the stated goals.
In an article titled “Netanyahu — the biggest loser in the Iran deal. Can he stay in politics?” the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung notes that Netanyahu’s position puts him before a “double dilemma”—internal and external. Continuing confrontation could jeopardize his relations with the United States, while retreat would make him look weak after he had built himself the image of a “strong defender.” The outlet adds that the streets of Israel were filled with posters thanking Donald Trump when he pulled Israel into a war in the hope of quickly toppling the Iranian regime, but the gratitude turned into “shock” after Trump signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran and Israel was left completely out of the negotiating process.
These events, the paper argues, reflect differences in how the sides calculated the situation: for Trump, the deal could be only a temporary compromise, whereas for Israel it looks like an “existential threat,” since “the United States is leaving its partner, Israel, alone.” Netanyahu tried to minimize the damage at a press conference, without directly criticizing Trump. He said that Israel “saved the country from destruction” and that Tehran “will not obtain nuclear weapons now or in the future.” However, most Israelis, the media report, believe what happened in Iran is the prime minister’s “failure.”
Neue Zürcher Zeitung emphasizes that the situation is extremely sensitive for Netanyahu, because he needs an achievement comparable in scale to the failure of October 7, 2023. Previously, he relied on the image of Israel as a force capable of shifting the balance in the Middle East. However, Israel’s actions in Gaza—more than 70,000 killed, the blocking of humanitarian aid, and nearly complete destruction of the enclave—dealt a serious blow to the country’s reputation and led to an increase in its international isolation. In addition, after the joint US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, the paths of the United States and Israel began to diverge rapidly: it became clear that toppling the regime in Tehran had not succeeded as quickly as expected, and as the midterm elections in Congress approached, further war could turn into a major defeat for Republicans.
The newspaper concludes that Netanyahu faced a dilemma of opposite options: continuing the war against “Hezbollah” and Iran could mean losing the alliance with the United States, while retreat and accepting the reality at home would make him seem weak in the eyes of the public. In another article titled “Israel and Trump: Netanyahu is a victim of his alliance with the US president,” the left-leaning newspaper taz calls Netanyahu “the biggest loser” from the ceasefire agreement between the United States and Iran. The outlet explains that before the war, Netanyahu had bet on a close alliance with Trump, who was popular in Israel thanks to his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital and his support for the “Abraham Accords” with Arab Gulf states.
taz argues that the US-Iran deal showed a mismatch of interests between Washington and Tel Aviv: Netanyahu wanted to weaken the Iranian regime, and possibly overthrow it, while Trump preferred to stop the war and reach an agreement that would ensure calm on the fronts—including in Lebanon. In the newspaper’s view, this was tied to political and economic pressure inside the United States—rising fuel prices and the approach of the midterm elections. As a result, the war that Netanyahu wanted to use to strengthen his image “backfired,” because Trump’s Iran deal demonstrated the “limits of Israeli influence” and showed that Washington can put its own interests above the demands of the Israeli government.
Comments on the news
What is “Hezbollah” and what role does it play in the conflict between Israel and Iran? — “Hezbollah” is a Lebanese Shiite armed group and political party created with support from Iran in the 1980s. Iran views it as a key proxy actor for deterring Israel and conducting an indirect war. “Hezbollah” has a significant rocket arsenal, participated in fighting against Israel (for example, in 2006), and supports Iranian interests in the region, including countering Israeli influence and defending the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad.
What are the “Abraham Accords” and how are they connected to Israel’s Iran policy? — The “Abraham Accords” are a series of agreements signed in 2020 with US mediation that normalize relations between Israel and a number of Arab countries (the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan). For Israel, these agreements reduced isolation in the region and created a new bloc directed against the shared Iranian influence. By strengthening economic and military-intelligence ties with Arab monarchies, Israel gained the ability to more actively counter Iranian proxies and the nuclear program.
Why was Israel completely left out of the negotiating process between the United States and Iran? — Israel was not formally a participant in the negotiations on the nuclear deal (JCPOA) due to its categorical disagreement with its terms. Since 1979, Tehran has not recognized Israel and refuses to hold direct consultations with it. The United States, seeking to preserve a diplomatic channel with Iran, did not insist on including Israel at the negotiating table, although it kept Israel informed and took its concerns into account regarding the timeline of restrictions and inspections.
What goals did the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran pursue and why didn’t it lead to a quick overthrow of the regime? — The main objectives were to destroy or significantly weaken Iran’s nuclear program, undermine its military infrastructure, and contain its influence in the region (through proxies in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon). A rapid overthrow of the regime was not among the official tasks—both countries relied on targeted strikes and economic pressure. The Iranian government did not collapse due to the deep resilience of Iran’s political system, the presence of a well-developed repressive apparatus, and also because the United States and Israel were unwilling to get involved in a large-scale ground operation that would require years of occupation.
Full version: German-language media read Netanyahu’s predicament after the Iran deal