On June 21, the United States officially joined Israel’s campaign against Iran, launching strikes on nuclear facilities in Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow. Israeli media swiftly interpreted this as an “historic vindication” of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s aggressive posture – political survival, military persistence and a seemingly masterful ability to bend Washington to his will.
Polling shows strong public support for the strikes, but a complicated longer term picture:
Netanyahu’s assumption – that wartime endurance makes the unthinkable seem routine – appears accurate, for now.
Meanwhile, civil resilience and national pride remains Israel’s invisible weapon. One might expect support to quickly fade as missiles start landing and thousands are made homeless, but Israelis have proven consistently resilient to such disruptions. Local councils, NGOs, and volunteers pivoted overnight – opening shelters, organizing supply lines, and providing trauma support. Iranian analysts miscalculate this: Civilian pressure repeatedly fails to curtail Israeli resolve.
Alongside the anxiety and political volatility, the strikes have triggered a resurgence of national pride in the operational success of the IDF, and particularly in Israel’s intelligence community and the Air Force.
Their coordinated effectiveness in the initial stages of the Iran operation has captured the public imagination. Across political and social divides, Israelis are expressing a renewed sense of military readiness – an antidote to the prolonged disillusionment that followed the horrors of October 7 and 18 months of grinding war in Gaza.
According to a June 2025 poll conducted by the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), trust in the IDF jumped from 75.5% in May to 82%. Confidence in the Air Force and Mossad now stands at 83% and 81%, respectively, and support for Israeli Military Intelligence has risen sharply from 61% to 74%.
The successful targeting of senior Iranian military commanders, top nuclear scientists, and key ballistic missile sites has reignited confidence in Israel’s military and strategic edge. These operations have been hailed by Israeli commentators as a demonstration of regained deterrent power and operational precision.
On the other hand, confidence in the security commentariat who filled Israeli TV screens day after day is eroding. Many retired generals, defense experts, and studio pundits warned repeatedly that Israeli isolation and US non-involvement would spell disaster. None of that has been brought to bear so far, and America’s entry only challenges the credibility of naysayers further. The result is a deeper mood of institutional mistrust: Israelis are wondering whom to believe – elected officials, military veterans, foreign observers?
In contrast to previous military campaigns that sharply divided Israeli politics, there’s currently a broad sense of unity – even among prominent center-left figures. Yet the nature of their support reveals a dual message: Endorsement of the US action and a renewed call for diplomacy.
Retired IDF Deputy Chief of Staff and the Democrats party leader Yair Golan praised the strike as “impressive, important, and justified,” adding that “a nuclear Iran cannot be tolerated, and it’s good that the United States made that crystal clear – for the entire world.” But Golan also invoked President Trump’s past words: “Now is the time for peace. For a comprehensive agreement, for the release of the hostages, for ending the war, for regional normalization, for real security for Israeli citizens.”
Opposition leader Yair Lapid, head of the centrist Yesh Atid party, called the moment “historic for the entire Middle East,” thanking both the United States and President Trump. He framed the operation as not just a tactical achievement but a strategic prevention: “Tonight we stopped a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.”
Even the traditionally ceremonial President Isaac Herzog, who has sought to position himself as a unifying voice above politics, issued an effusive endorsement – while notably omitting mention of Netanyahu. “In the pages of human history,” Herzog said, “this is a moment in which principles of liberty, responsibility, and security prevailed. A moment of reckoning between the axis of terror and the axis of hope.”
Together, these statements reflect a narrative taking shape across Israel’s political spectrum that this war – though dangerous and complex – could serve not only to degrade Iran’s nuclear capability, but also to unlock a regional diplomatic realignment, long sought by moderates and liberals alike.
Despite the military crescendo, public support for diplomacy endures. Over 70% of Israelis favor negotiations to resolve conflicts – particularly a ceasefire and hostage deal for Gaza – and reject open-ended war. The US entry into the Iran conflict, controversial as it is in the United States and on the world stage, potentially unlocks new diplomatic leverage for a Gaza ceasefire deal once immediate military goals are achieved.
Meanwhile, what began as a mission to hamper Iran’s nuclear program now increasingly sounds like a regime-change war – with Trump now explicitly naming it as a potential goal and targets widening far beyond nuclear facilities. Israeli commentary has pivoted sharply, with officials and press discussing strategic weakening – even “destabilization” – of the Iranian regime. The US strike consolidates that trajectory.
Netanyahu’s gamble in striking Iran while US negotiations were still ongoing appears to have paid off for him in Israel – with the Trump Administration rallying to his side despite initial efforts to distance themselves from the strikes. His wartime narrative and political resilience are strengthened, though public patience is not infinite.
While the public appears to appreciate the strategic risk Netanyahu has taken, there is also growing frustration with the lack of a clear exit strategy and his perceived detachment from the mounting human toll of the conflict. When civilians were sheltering from bombardment or suffocating in Hamas tunnels, he chose to publicly lament the disruption of his son’s wedding plans – a jarring contrast that has not gone unnoticed. This perceived emotional distance, combined with the absence of a long-term vision, could cost him politically once the immediate threat subsides.
Like the statesman he has long admired, Winston Churchill, who led Britain through existential peril only to be voted out after victory, Netanyahu could find that winning the war does not guarantee winning the next election. The Israeli public’s gratitude in times of war does not always translate into long-term political loyalty in times of recovery.
Whether this alignment can translate into long-term regional stability, or merely a deeper spiral of conflict, may hinge on the very institutions – security, political, and civil – that now stand at the center of both societal trust and skepticism.