The growing rift between the United States and Israel hit new heights this week, with articles published in major Israeli publications accusing President Donald Trump of abandoning Israel to its greatest enemy following his interim deal with Iran.

Accusations of Betrayal

Analysts described a sense of betrayal as public and political outrage over the terms of the agreement, which details the broad terms for ending the joint US-Israeli war on Iran, dominated headlines. In one particularly blistering attack, an op-ed titled “You could have been the greatest president of all, but you failed” accused Trump of having signed a “surrender agreement with a murderous and cruel terror administration.”

Published in one of the country’s leading newspapers, Israel Hayom, which is owned by influential Trump mega-donor Miriam Adelson, the piece pulled few punches. Styled as a letter to Trump, it went further than even some of Israel’s more extreme politicians in voicing criticism of the pact, accusing the US president of having turned the hourglass over to a new war and of having brought about the “humiliation” of his country.

A Shift in Public Perception

Hagai Ram, a professor at Ben Gurion University and author of the book Iranophobia: The Logic of an Israeli Obsession, said Trump was until recently “the most popular figure in Israel” – but he had now been turned “into a villain.” The reaction was down to “phobia” and to an “all-encompassing sense of American betrayal of Israel” following a deal that was crowned by mainstream media as “an Iranian trap,” he added.

A poll by Israel’s Channel 12 TV on Thursday appeared to mark a break with years of wide public support for the US, and Trump in particular. According to the survey, only 11 percent of Israelis felt their country had “won” the war the US and Israel launched against Iran in late February, with an overwhelming 71 percent saying they no longer trusted the Trump administration to safeguard Israeli interests in the negotiations with Iran established under the terms of the MoU.

Political Reactions and Future Implications

Disquiet over US aims has not been limited to the public. While Netanyahu has yet to comment publicly on the terms of the MoU, Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon and allegations that Hezbollah violated its terms have provided observers with indication enough that he does not regard himself as bound by it. Others within his cabinet have been more direct, with both hard-right Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, and National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, publicly denouncing the interim deal.

“With all due respect to the Americans, Israel must make it clear to the entire world that the blood of our sons and the security of our citizens are not forfeit. All of Lebanon must burn,” Ben-Gvir said in an X post that was later restricted for breaching the platform’s terms of service.

US figures have bristled at the characterisation of their negotiations within Israel’s politics and media. At the G7 on Wednesday, Trump told reporters Netanyahu had got “a little excited” in the attacks on Lebanon. US Vice President JD Vance has been more full-throated in his attacks on Israeli critics. Asked on Thursday about reports that Netanyahu was fuming over the MoU, Vance said Trump “is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time,” referencing the global condemnation of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and attacks upon its neighbours.

Political analyst Ori Goldberg described the situation as not a spat but a “rift.” “The criticism of Israel coming from US leaders hasn’t arisen because they’ve suddenly gained any great insight, it’s because the facts have become unavoidable,” he said. “Everything they’re saying is correct. These are truth bombs. Israel did pull them into a war and Netanyahu did manipulate Trump.”

Matters only appear to be growing more grave. On Saturday, Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon led to Iran once more closing the Strait of Hormuz, the economic gateway where closure previously was credited by many with bringing Trump to the negotiating table.

“Two things are going on here, and each one is a mirror of the other,” said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli ambassador and consul general in New York. “On the one hand, you have all the Trump cultists desperately searching for someone external to blame for luring their great leader into such an intractable war, and seizing upon Netanyahu. On the other hand, you have all the Netanyahu followers. They’re also faced with a war in Lebanon they can’t get out of and a US agreement with what they’re being told again and again is a far more powerful Iran than that which agreed to a better deal under Obama,” added Pinkas. “Ultimately, it’s a bad agreement because it was a bad war,” he continued. “One always follows the other.”