Most Israelis reject the new ceasefire. An INSS poll finds 61% oppose it and many expect the fighting to return within a year.

Public anger and political strain

The mood inside Israel is tense. A poll released by the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) shows 61% of respondents oppose the ceasefire announced last week, and 73% expect hostilities with Iran to restart within a year.

The numbers expose a sharp disconnect between the government's public rhetoric and what many voters now see as the outcome of a costly campaign. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had framed the confrontation with Iran as an existential fight that would degrade Tehran's strategic capabilities. Instead, the short-term truce has left the Iranian state intact, its ballistic missile forces partly undamaged and — some analysts say — its regional reach possibly widened.

That political fallout is immediate. Netanyahu’s critics say he promised decisive results that the campaign failed to deliver. Support within the Knesset and among opposition figures has shifted from outright criticism of the initial attack to squabbling over how the conflict ended and why Israel was sidelined in negotiations that produced the two-week cessation of hostilities.

One-sentence paragraph for impact.

Why many Israelis say the war fell short

The INSS poll also found 69% of respondents backed continued military action in Lebanon, even after talks opened between Israeli and Lebanese officials in the United States. Israel has maintained strikes in Lebanese territory, saying Lebanon was not covered by the recent ceasefire agreement; the campaign has drawn international censure and raised questions about whether the government misjudged the wider regional reaction.

Military gains were judged not only by destroyed targets but also by strategic results. The public had been told the operation would cripple Iran’s nuclear capabilities and its ballistic missile stocks, and might even topple elements of the regime. Those goals, according to critics, were over-sold.

Dahlia Scheindlin, an American-Israeli political consultant and pollster, put it bluntly: “He [Netanyahu] did oversell how much the war could accomplish: regime collapse and completely destroying the nuclear program and ballistic missiles, which couldn’t be accomplished,” she said.

What the ceasefire actually looks like

The truce took effect roughly 90 minutes before the deadline set by United States President Donald Trump, who had warned of extensive retaliation and said he intended to target Iran’s civilian infrastructure if Tehran didn't comply with a US ultimatum. Israel was not reported to have been a party to the final, US-brokered arrangement.

Mastheads

Instead of the all-or-nothing victory advertised by some Israeli leaders, the deal buys time. It's temporary — two weeks in its current form — and observers inside Israel overwhelmingly expect it to be only a pause. The INSS figures reflect that pessimism: three in four respondents foresee a return to fighting within a year.

Short paragraph to break rhythm.

Regional and strategic consequences

Analysts note a paradox. Tehran has suffered damage but remains a functioning state. Its ballistic arsenal is only partly degraded, and its influence across proxy networks in the region appears to have endured. The source material highlights one concrete strategic concern: Iran’s foothold over the Strait of Hormuz — a waterway the poll report calls economically vital. Disruption there could reshape maritime traffic and energy markets beyond the immediate region.

That matters because control of, or interference within, the Hormuz corridor affects global crude flows and international shipping. Markets are already nervous about the conflict’s economic cost: Israel has shouldered heavy military expenditures, and the wider confrontation has pushed up insurance and freight costs for regional trade routes.

And Israel’s continued strikes in Lebanon complicate diplomatic avenues. Even if a ceasefire holds for the near term, the persistence of cross-border operations increases the risk of renewed escalation and hinders political efforts to set clearer red lines between the combatants.

Political reverberations in Jerusalem

Netanyahu’s political position is under pressure from multiple sides. While opposition leaders didn't openly challenge the decision to go to war initially, they have signalled a willingness to criticise the terms of the ceasefire and the government’s strategic judgment. Yair Lapid, a leading opposition figure, moved to align with governing demands early on, but public sentiment shown in the INSS poll gives his camp incentives to shift tone as the fallout continues.

Domestic economic stress is adding to the heat. The conflict has triggered increased defence spending and disrupted sectors tied to trade and investment sentiment. Households face indirect costs, and businesses already nervous about supply-chain disruption and higher shipping bills have told officials they expect more pressure if regional tensions persist.

International diplomacy and the US role

The headline diplomatic reality is that Washington played a decisive role in pressing for the ceasefire. The timing — announced just before President Trump’s deadline — left several allies and regional players with little time to shape the outcome. Some in Israel say that sidelining local involvement in the final negotiations has undermined the government’s position at home.

The US role has two main effects. It forestalls a wider regional conflagration for now, but it also hands the narrative to Washington: the agreement’s authors and enforcers will be seen as US-led. That dynamic is awkward for Netanyahu, who had cast much of the operation as an Israeli initiative to blunt an Iranian threat.

What comes next

For most Israelis, the ceasefire looks like a temporary pause — not the decisive end they'd been promised. The INSS poll’s combined findings suggest a public braced for renewed violence while still backing further action in neighbouring Lebanon.

Economically, the main near-term risks are higher energy and shipping costs and the strain of sustained military spending. Politically, Netanyahu must answer a fundamental question: how to reconcile a public appetite for strong action with the limits of what a short, high-intensity campaign can achieve.

One-sentence paragraph to close the body.

Related Articles

“He [Netanyahu] did oversell how much the war could accomplish: regime collapse and completely destroying the nuclear program and ballistic missiles, which couldn’t be accomplished,” said Dahlia Scheindlin, American-Israeli political consultant and pollster.

This article was created with AI assistance.