The Economist has argued that the military partnership between the United States and Israel is undergoing a profound transformation, as President Donald Trump and Iranian leaders move towards an agreement that extends the ceasefire and formally ends the war.
According to the magazine, the deal will leave Israel without any meaningful strategic gains.
Israel Failed to Achieve Its Objectives
Based on the details of the agreement revealed so far, and despite Israel reportedly not receiving a copy of the document itself, the deal addresses few of Israel’s concerns, if any at all.
One Israeli diplomat described the outcome as “a spectacular failure”, while the magazine said it also represented “a personal blow” to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Netanyahu, according to The Economist, invested enormous political capital in convincing Trump that war with Iran could reshape the Middle East in Israel’s favour and perhaps even bring down the Islamic Republic.
Yet despite Netanyahu’s claims and the damage inflicted on Iran during the conflict, the Iranian government remains in power and its authority has, in fact, strengthened.
Meanwhile, the agreement expected to be signed in Geneva on 19 June does not directly address Iran’s nuclear programme.
Instead, the issue will be discussed in negotiations scheduled to continue over the next sixty days.
There is no guarantee those talks will produce a final settlement.
On the contrary, they may be extended repeatedly.
Iran also retains the capability to launch ballistic missiles at Israel, other countries in the Middle East, and beyond.
The magazine noted that Iran’s ballistic missile programme is not expected to be included in the agreement with Washington at all.
Hezbollah and Regional Alliances Remain Untouched
The agreement also fails to address one of Israel’s longstanding concerns, namely Iran’s network of regional allies.
The most powerful among them, Hezbollah, is expected to receive what the report describes as new protection from Israeli attacks under the ceasefire arrangement.
Israel nearly derailed the truce just hours before it was announced by launching strikes on Beirut.
However, rather than undermining negotiations as Netanyahu had apparently hoped, the attack only reinforced Trump’s determination to finalise the agreement.
Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz has insisted that Israeli forces will remain in what he calls “security zones” occupied by Israel in southern Lebanon over the past three months.
Iran, however, is reportedly demanding that an Israeli withdrawal be included as part of the agreement with the United States.
If so, Israel can no longer assume unconditional American backing on this issue.
Trump himself has publicly expressed frustration with Netanyahu, saying he was “very angry” about the Beirut strike and criticising his former ally for showing “no wisdom”.
He reportedly described Netanyahu as “a difficult person” and said he “should be very grateful to us”.
The US-Israel Relationship Is Changing
The growing divergence between Washington and Tel Aviv became increasingly apparent during the war itself.
Israeli strikes on Iranian energy facilities reportedly angered Trump, highlighting how the objectives of the two countries were drifting apart.
While Israel sought to topple the Iranian government, Trump appeared more interested in negotiating with it.
A former Israeli official who previously worked in Washington told the magazine:
“A large part of the problem is that we no longer have the kind of relationship with America where officials speak candidly with one another at every level. Now, everything is overshadowed by the relationship between Netanyahu and Trump and their personal issues.”
More importantly, Israel’s and America’s goals regarding Iran are no longer as closely aligned.
According to The Economist, voices within Israel’s defence and intelligence establishment warned military leaders early in the war that this divergence posed a serious problem and urged Israel to adopt more realistic objectives.
However, Israel’s leadership became carried away by the success of the initial air strikes and continued backing Netanyahu throughout the forty day conflict.
Then Trump declared the war over.
Since then, the magazine argued, Israel has been left increasingly isolated.
Tactical Successes, Strategic Failure
For years, confronting Iran has been Netanyahu’s defining political objective.
Twice, he led Israel into war in pursuit of that goal.
Although these campaigns inflicted significant damage on Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes, The Economist warned that such damage may prove temporary.
In contrast, Israel failed to achieve its broader strategic goals.
It also damaged crucial relationships with the United States and strained ties with Arab states that had previously been viewed as partners against Iran.
Electoral Consequences for Netanyahu
All of this is expected to weigh heavily on Netanyahu’s prospects in the Israeli elections scheduled for October.
According to the magazine, it will be difficult for him to continue presenting himself as the guarantor of Israel’s security when the outcome of the war appears to have delivered so little regarding Iran.
At the same time, Netanyahu cannot afford to appear at odds with Trump.
For years, he has benefited politically from his close relationship with the American president, who remains popular among many Israelis.
Nevertheless, none of Netanyahu’s rivals have offered a fundamentally different approach towards Iran.
Leaders of all major opposition parties enthusiastically supported the war when it began.
Their criticism now focuses not on Netanyahu’s decision to launch the conflict, but on his failure to produce concrete results.
One military strategist summed up the situation bluntly:
“We desperately need a new policy towards Iran.”
At present, the magazine concluded, “there is no hope that Israel will get one.”
