Israeli politicians split over Iran ceasefire deal
Israeli political figures have responded sharply and at times inconsistently to the ceasefire agreement with Iran, reflecting deep divides within the country's leadership and public discourse. Here's how some key figures reacted:
Bezalel Smotrich, finance minister: Praised Israel's gains against Iran and signalled a shift in focus: "Now with all our might to Gaza, to complete the job."
Avigdor Liberman, former defence and foreign minister: "The final chord is particularly jarring and bitter. Instead of an unconditional surrender, the world enters into difficult and tedious negotiations, with the ayatollahs' regime having no intention of giving up."
Yair Golan, MK, left-wing: Called for a thorough review of the ceasefire deal, stating, "All the hostages must be returned, end the war in Gaza, and stop the regime coup once and for all."
Yair Lapid, opposition leader: Urged a pivot to Gaza: "And now Gaza. This is the moment to close there as well. To return the hostages, to end the war. Israel needs to start rebuilding."
Limor Son Har-Melech, MK, far-right, Jewish Power party: Rejected the ceasefire, warning: "Without the overthrow of the regime, the threat has not been removed."
Tzvi Kreuzer, MK, far-right, Jewish Power party: Opposed any pause in hostilities with Iran: "No to a ceasefire - fire without a break."
Itzik Bonsel, right-wing activist: Raised doubts over the government's messaging: "For years it has been said that Iran is an existential threat. Is it possible that after 11 days of fighting, that this threat has been removed? No Israeli official said so."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
39 minutes ago
- Middle East Eye
Israel's failure to subdue Iran shows it can no longer dictate the regional order
The Luftwaffe regarded the blitz on Coventry on 14 November 1940 as an astonishing technological achievement. German propaganda broadcasts hailed the raid as 'the most severe in the whole history of the war'. The chief Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, was so delighted with the raid, that he coined a new term in its honour: 'to Coventrate'. It was not long, however, before the taste of total victory turned sour. The production of aero engines and aircraft parts was quickly shifted to shadow factories. Capacity had only been dented, not destroyed; within months, factories were back to full production. We also know now that the Germans were worried by the effect the image of the ruined Coventry Cathedral would have on the Americans who were yet to join the war. Indeed, the Germans underestimated the resilience of the British, who forged instead a resolve to hit back as never before. The Royal Air Force began a forceful bombing campaign of Germany shortly afterwards. It has taken Israel's high command just 12 days to see the total victory they claimed to have achieved in the first hours of their blitz on Iran turn into something that looks more like a strategic defeat. Hence Israel's massive reluctance to stick to a ceasefire, after promising US President Donald Trump it would abide by it. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters None of Israel's three war aims have been met. There is no evidence yet that Iran's nuclear enrichment programme has been 'completely and fully obliterated' as Trump claimed. Iran had time to move at least some of its centrifuges out of harm's way, and it's not clear where the existing stockpile of more than 400 kilogrammes of highly enriched uranium is being stored. Meanwhile, the scores of generals and scientists killed in the first hours of the attack were swiftly replaced. Weathering the storm If Coventry is anything to go by, uranium enrichment and missile-launcher production will be up and running within months, not years, as the Americans claim. The technology, the know-how, and above all the Iranian national will to restore and rebuild key national assets have all weathered the storm. Evidently, from the damage Iranian missiles inflicted within hours of Trump's announcement of a ceasefire, its ballistic missile force, the second Israeli war aim, remains a palpable and continuing threat to Israel. Israel sustained more damage from Iran's missiles in 12 days than it did from two years of Hamas's homegrown rockets, or indeed from months of war with Hezbollah. In 12 days, Israeli crews have come to grips with the sort of damage to apartment blocks that before only Israeli planes had inflicted on Gaza and Lebanon - and it's been something of a shock. Strategic targets have been hit, including an oil refinery and a power station. Iran has also reported strikes on Israeli military facilities, although Israel's strict censorship regime makes these assertions difficult to verify. Far from turbocharging Netanyahu's ambitions to grind Iran into a Gaza-grade dust, Trump called time on a war that had only just started And finally, the Iranian regime is still standing. If anything, the regime has rallied the nation rather than dividing it, if only out of nationalist fury about Israel's unprovoked attack. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's other great 'achievement' - dragging the US into its war - now looks like a poisoned chalice. For how much longer will that banner - 'Thank you, Mr President' - be up on a central highway in Tel Aviv, after Trump applied a massive and premature handbrake on Netanyahu's war machine? Twelve days ago, Trump started by refuting the notion of any US involvement in Israel's surprise attack on Iran. When he saw it was succeeding, Trump attempted to muscle his way in on the project, saying it could only have been achieved with US technology. As the attack wore on, Trump suggested that he, too, would not be opposed to regime change. But in the final 24 hours, Trump lurched from demanding Iran's unconditional surrender, to thanking Iran for warning the US of its intention to strike al-Udeid air base in Qatar, and declaring peace in our time. Turning the tables Far from turbocharging Netanyahu's ambitions to grind Iran into a Gaza-grade dust, Trump called time on a war that had only just started. And unlike in Gaza, Netanyahu is in no position to defy the will of the US president. Trump had serious problems of his own in pursuing a venture that half of his party was vociferously against. For Netanyahu, these past 12 days have been a steep learning curve. If day one proved that Israeli intelligence could achieve the same success in Iran as it did against Hezbollah in Lebanon, by eliminating the first echelon of its military and scientific command - and that Israel could do all of that on its own, without direct US help - by day 10, it was becoming apparent that Israel could achieve none of its war aims without the US joining in. But before the ink had dried on all the praise Netanyahu garnered in Israel by getting Washington involved in what had been an Israel-only project, Trump turned the tables on his closest ally once again. He proved to be a one-hit wonder. Without even pausing to assess whether the nuclear enrichment site buried deep underground at Fordo had indeed been disabled, Trump declared mission accomplished. Israel-US attack on Iran: The price of Netanyahu's forever wars Read More » He did it with a speed that was suspicious, as indeed, from Israel's view, was his haste in congratulating Iran for not killing any of his troops. It was very much like the way he came to a deal with the Houthis in Yemen before flying to Riyadh to cash in on the proceeds. Iran, on the other hand, is emerging from this conflict with strategic gains - although the immediate battering it has sustained, and the hundreds of casualties it has suffered, should not be ignored. Its air defences failed to bring down a single Israeli warplane, although they appeared to have downed drones. Israeli warplanes were free to roam the skies of Iran, and Israeli intelligence once again showed that it had penetrated deep into the Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iranian scientific community. These were all clear failings. But none proved decisive. In the end, all Iran had to do was, in the words of 1940s-era Britain, 'keep calm and carry on'. That meant sending a steady stream of missiles towards Israel, knowing that even if all were knocked out of the sky, the entire population was penned up in shelters, and Israel's precious and expensive supply of Arrow missiles was being consumed. What Iran thus established was exactly what the Israeli economy could not handle after 20 months of war: a war of attrition on a second front. Netanyahu needed a quick knockout blow, and despite the first day of success, it never came. Even so, Israel could not stop itself from bombing, after being told not to by Trump. So another not-so-subtle message had to be delivered over the megaphone: 'Israel. Do not drop those bombs. If you do it it is a major violation,' Trump boomed in capital letters. War of narratives For in the end, this conflict was never about ending a nuclear-bomb programme that never existed (if it had, Iran would have long ago been able to build a bomb). This conflict was essentially a war between two narratives. The first is well known. It goes like this. The Hamas attack on 7 October 2023 was a strategic mistake. No force that Arabs or Iranians can muster can ever match the power of Israel and the US combined, or even Israel armed with the latest generation of weapons. Israel will always defeat its enemies on the battlefield, as it did in 1948, 1967, 1973, 1978 and 1982. The only option for Arabs is to recognise Israel on its terms, which means to trade with it, and leave Palestinian statehood for another day. This view is held with variations, and unofficially, by all Arab leaders and their military and security chiefs. The alternative narrative is that while the state of Israel exists in its current form, there can be no peace. This is the source of the conflict, as opposed to the presence of Jews in Palestine. Resistance to occupation will always exist, no matter who takes up or puts down the cudgel, as long as that occupation continues. Iran's existence as a regime that defies the Israeli will to dominate and conquer is more important than its strategic rocket force. Its ability to stand up to Israel and the US, and to keep fighting, shows the same spirit that Palestinians in Gaza have shown in refusing to be starved into surrender. If the ceasefire holds, Iran has a number of options. It should be in no rush to return to a negotiating table abandoned twice by Trump himself - once when he withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018, and again this month, when his envoy Steve Witkoff was engaged in direct talks. Trump boasted that he had deceived the Iranians by engaging them in talks and allowing Israel to prepare its strikes at the same time. Well, he won't be able to pull that trick again. Tehran's options To return to talks, Iran would need guarantees that Israel will not attack again - guarantees that Israel itself will never give. As I and others have argued, being part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty has served Iran's interests poorly. It could walk away from the treaty, having every incentive now to develop a nuclear bomb to stop Israel from ever doing this again. In reality, Iran does not have to do anything. It has weathered maximum-pressure sanctions and a 12-day armageddon with the latest American weaponry in use. It does not need an agreement. It can rebuild and repair the damage it has sustained in these attacks, and if past experience is anything to go by, it will emerge stronger than before. The Iranian people will never forgive or forget US-Israeli attacks Read More » Netanyahu and Trump have some accounting to do to an increasingly hostile and sceptical domestic audience. Israel's former defence minister, Avigdor Lieberman, is worth quoting in this regard. He noted after the ceasefire announcement: 'Despite Israel's military and intelligence successes, the ending is bitter. Instead of unconditional surrender, we're entering tough talks with a regime that won't stop enriching uranium, building missiles, or funding terror. 'From the start, I warned: there's nothing more dangerous than a wounded lion. A ceasefire without a clear deal will only bring another war in 2-3 years - under worse conditions.' Israel has swapped Gaza's homemade rockets for Iran's ballistic missiles. It has swapped an indirect enemy and sponsor of proxy militias, for a direct enemy - one that has no hesitation in sending the entire population of Israel into bunkers. That is some achievement, but not the one Netanyahu was thinking 12 days ago. The major European states - all signatories to the Iran nuclear deal - have absolutely nothing to say to Iran. They have abdicated all ability to mediate in their spinelessness and acquiescence to an attack on Iran that had absolutely no legality in international law. Once again, they have undermined the international order they claim to be upholding. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Middle East Eye
2 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
What the Israel-Iran-US conflict taught Pakistan
The freshly thawed conflict between Israel and Iran, including recent US strikes targeting Iran's nuclear facilities, placed Pakistan in a fragile position, caught between regional loyalties and strategic considerations. Islamabad shares a 905‑km border with Iran across the province of Balochistan, a porous and volatile region where cross-border militant networks are already active. Historically, Iran was the first country to recognise Pakistan in 1947, and supported it in the 1965 and 1971 wars with India, building enduring political and cultural ties. Pakistan has responded to the Iran-Israel standoff by extending what it describes as 'unequivocal and unambiguous' diplomatic and moral support to Tehran, strongly condemning Israeli air strikes, along with the US attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, as blatant violations of Iran's sovereignty and international law. While Iran acknowledged and welcomed Islamabad's solidarity, Pakistan deliberately avoided making military commitments, underscoring its caution. On Monday, Iran launched a choreographed attack on a US base in Qatar as retaliation for US strikes. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters While the strikes were followed by US President Donald Trump declaring a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, the conflict cemented the notion that growing volatility in the Middle East can easily land on Pakistan's doorstep in South Asia. Engagement with Washington A meeting on 19 June at the White House between Field Marshal Asim Munir, Pakistan's army chief, and US President Donald Trump underscored Pakistan's heightened diplomatic mobilisation. The meeting was framed primarily around Pakistan's role in diffusing a recent India-Pakistan conflict, but the ongoing Iran-Israel confrontation at the time, and the potential for direct US military involvement, were central to the discussions, experts believe. After the meeting, Trump said that 'Pakistan knows Iran very well, better than most', and added that Islamabad was 'not happy' with the current escalation. 'In every respect, this conflict is likely to have serious repercussions for Pakistan, and we must begin preparing for its impact' - Pakistani security official While US officials extended public thanks for Pakistan's help in de-escalating regional flare-ups, Islamabad emphasised that it had offered no military advice and advocated for diplomacy, citing potential harm to US interests as unwise. Following his four-day visit to the United States, General Asim Munir travelled directly to Turkey to attend an emergency summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, which was convened to address the Iran-Israel crisis. Pakistan also abstained from a recent International Atomic Energy Agency vote condemning Iran, reinforcing its diplomatic caution. However, Pakistani security officials have expressed concern that the country may not be able to shield itself from the spillover effects of the Iran conflict. 'In every respect, this conflict is likely to have serious repercussions for Pakistan, and we must begin preparing for its impact,' a security official based in Islamabad told Middle East Eye. Sectarian tensions Pakistan's security outlook with regard to Iran is shaped by a complex matrix of historical ties, geographical proximity and sectarian sensitivities, placing Islamabad in a strategically precarious position. While Pakistan is a majority Sunni country, it is home to a sizeable Shia minority, estimated on the low end to constitute between 15–20 percent of its nearly 250 million citizens. This community holds deep religious, cultural and emotional ties with Iran, widely viewed by Shia Muslims as a spiritual and ideological centre. These connections make Pakistan's position particularly delicate, as the appetite for national militarism rises in the Middle East. Analysts and Shia leaders warn that any overt support by Islamabad for military action against Iran, or even a stance of perceived neutrality, could exacerbate sectarian tensions and trigger political unrest. Pakistan has a long and often violent history of sectarian conflict, usually inflamed by geopolitical shifts in the Muslim world. 'Targeting him (Ayatollah Khamenei) would provoke serious emotional and political consequences, including within Pakistan' - Syed Ali Rizvi, Shia cleric In Karachi, Pakistan's largest city, thousands marched on Sunday in protest against US and Israeli strikes on Iran. 'Any alignment with a western or Israeli-led offensive against Tehran would not only alienate a significant portion of our population but could also destabilise the internal security fabric of the country,' Syed Ali Raza Rizvi, a Shia cleric in Karachi, told MEE. Rizvi warned that attempts to forcibly dislodge Iran's clerical leadership would carry profound repercussions. 'Ayatollah Khamenei is not like Mullah Omar, Saddam Hussein, or Bashar al-Assad. He is a marja [religious authority], a source of emulation for millions of Shias worldwide. Targeting him would provoke serious emotional and political consequences, including within Pakistan.' Some experts noted that Shia groups in Pakistan, including influential figures in mainstream political parties, could pressure the government to adopt a more assertive pro-Iran stance. Last year, Pakistan banned the Zainabiyoun Brigade, a militia reportedly backed by Iran and known for recruiting Pakistani Shia youth to fight alongside the now ousted Assad government in Syria, Tehran's key ally before its collapse in December. 'We saw how emotionally charged the atmosphere became in Pakistan after the US drone strike that killed General Qassem Soleimani in 2020,' said Ali Hilal, a Karachi-based analyst on Middle Eastern affairs. Pakistan-Iran border fallout The 905-km border along Pakistan's southwestern province of Balochistan is known for its porous frontiers and overlapping ethnic communities. On the Iranian side lies Sistan-Baluchestan, home to similar Baloch populations. Much in a similar vein to its border with Afghanistan, cross-border ethnic ties further south complicate Pakistan's ability to remain insulated from regional instability. Analysts stress the risk that instability in Iran could create 'ungoverned spaces' along the Pakistan border, fueling militant movements and reigniting separatist ambitions. 'Iran's internal conflict dynamics are never fully contained within its borders - they inevitably spill over into Pakistan, particularly in Balochistan, where a separatist insurgency is already simmering,' said Imtiaz Baloch, an Islamabad-based researcher specialising in cross-border ethnic movements and regional militancy. Why did Pakistan and Iran bomb each other and then become friends again? Read More » Islamabad and Tehran have traded accusations for years: Pakistan claims Iran offers refuge to Pakistani separatists such as the Baloch Liberation Army and Baloch Liberation Front, while Iran accuses Pakistan of harbouring Iranian Sunni militants, including Jaish al‑Adl. Tensions flared in January 2024 when both struck each other's territory with missiles, a rare but serious escalation. The idea of a pan-Baloch homeland, often referred to as 'Greater Balochistan', has gained renewed traction among militant and nationalist circles. Groups such as the Free Balochistan Movement, led by Hyrbyair Marri, a self-exiled Baloch separatist based in the UK, have openly advocated for an independent Baloch state carved out of both Pakistan and Iran. The resurgence of such rhetoric, analysts warn, could further destabilise the volatile border region. Islamabad has already sealed five border crossings and launched countermeasures in Balochistan since mid‑June to curb militant infiltration and deter refugee influx, recalling the Afghan refugee crises after the Soviet invasion in 1979 and the Taliban's takeovers in 1996 and 2021. Nukes and Israeli air supremacy Another critical concern for Pakistan stems from the precedent set by US and Israeli air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities - and the potential extension of Israeli aerial dominance near Pakistan's western frontier. The strikes are particularly alarming for Islamabad, a nuclear-armed state bordering its long-time rival, India, another nuclear power. The notion that one country can target another's nuclear infrastructure with apparent impunity raises profound questions about the erosion of global non-proliferation norms, experts said. 'Israel achieving total air dominance over Iran would dramatically shift the regional security calculus and threaten the strategic balance' - Pakistani foreign ministry official 'Pakistan has condemned the US attack on nuclear sites, possibly with the thought of the dangerous precedent that it sets in its hostility with India,' said Farhan Hanif Siddiqi, a professor at the school of politics and international relations at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad. Siddiqui added that Pakistan had to assert that its nuclear capabilities and deterrence aren't aimed westward. "It (Pakistan) has made it clear that its strategic and nuclear forces remain directed at India and not any other country,' Siddiqi told MEE. A less direct but equally profound concern for Pakistan, which does not recognise Israel and views it as an enemy, is the reported expansion of Israeli air superiority deep into Iranian airspace. Both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump publicly claimed that Israeli forces were able to take total control of Tehran's skies, a declaration that didn't go unnoticed in Islamabad. 'Israel achieving total air dominance over Iran would dramatically shift the regional security calculus and threaten the strategic balance on Pakistan's western flank,' said a Pakistani foreign ministry official. 'It is not just an Iranian concern. It sets a dangerous precedent that could reverberate across the region, including here in South Asia.' Reset in US-Pakistan relations Islamabad saw the Munir-Trump meeting as a vital diplomatic reset after strained ties under the Biden administration, where issues like Pakistan's missile programme had soured US perceptions. After a shaky ceasefire, US and Israel can hardly claim to have deterred Iran Read More » The Pakistan military's media wing, Inter-Services Public Relations, boasted that the meeting achieved more in three days than India had in three decades - underscoring Islamabad's pride in repositioning itself at the centre of US strategic attention. 'Pakistan values its renewed relations with Iran but not at the cost of relations with the US, which it has tried hard to reset, given the recent Trump-Munir meeting,' said Siddiqi. But some analysts caution against interpreting the meeting as a fundamental shift in US policy. They note that Washington's relationship with Pakistan has historically been driven by short-term strategic needs rather than long-term alignment. 'US policy toward Pakistan is unchanging from administration to administration and transactional, as always,' Shuja Nawaz, a Washington-based political analyst and author of The Battle for Pakistan: The Bitter US Friendship and a Tough Neighbourhood, said on X. 'Pakistan needs to strengthen itself within its neighborhood to remain relevant and useful to its friends in both America and China. Nawaz emphasised that Pakistan's leadership, civilian and military, must draw lessons from history. 'A stronger polity and a strong economy. Otherwise, it will be at the mercy of its misalliances.' High‑wire act Pakistan's most pressing challenge continues to be its long-held policy of strategic non-alignment, often referred to as 'no-camp politics', as tensions in the Middle East refuse to die down. The recent flare-up between Israel, Iran and the US pushed Islamabad's ability to tread its careful middle path to the brink. Pakistan will count itself as lucky if the Israel-Iran ceasefire holds and the US chooses the negotiating table. Pakistan's position is made more precarious by internal vulnerabilities, including the rise of terrorism after the Taliban's recapture of Afghanistan in 2021, sectarian sensitivities, economic strain and political instability. Coupled with external pressures from competing global powers seeking regional footholds, Pakistan once again could find itself in the unenviable position it found itself during the US's global "war on terror". 'The concern is that there are no free lunches in Washington,' said the Pakistani security official, alluding to historical precedents. 'We've seen this before, becoming a frontline state against the Soviets in 1979, and again post-9/11 against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Each time, the cost to internal security and national cohesion was enormous.' Whether Pakistan can avoid being drawn into a new US-led security group or choose its own path focused on regional peace will be a key challenge for its diplomacy in the coming months. For now, Islamabad will continue to attempt its balancing act without a clear path forward.
Sharjah 24
2 hours ago
- Sharjah 24
UAE, Iranian Presidents discuss latest regional developments
Hope for stability and peace in the Middle East His Highness Sheikh UAE reiterates support for peace initiatives He emphasised the importance of ensuring the success of the agreement in a way that benefits all countries and peoples of the region. His Highness also reiterated the UAE's consistent position in support of efforts that promote peace and regional security. Iran acknowledges UAE's solidarity President Pezeshkian thanked His Highness for the UAE's stance and its solidarity with Iran following the Israeli military's targeting of Iranian territory.
