Success uncertain, but Israelis continue to back ‘heroic’ war with Iran

Tens of thousands of Israelis continue to express strong support for their country’s military campaign against Iran, even as doubts grow about the war’s ultimate objectives, costs and outcomes.
According to a March 2026 poll by the Israel Democracy Institute, roughly 82 – 93 % of Israelis — particularly Jewish Israelis — support the ongoing conflict with Iran, a level of consensus that crosses traditional political divides. That backing includes many who have historically opposed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, who now describe the campaign as a necessary defence against Tehran’s long‑standing threats.
A Nation Rallying Around the Flag
The war, which escalated after a series of Israeli strikes deep inside Iranian territory, has largely united public opinion behind the government. Within Israel, many citizens view the campaign not only as a defence of national security but as a “heroic” initiative to dismantle Iran’s capabilities and prevent future threats. Mainstream political parties, including many in the centre and moderate right, now publicly support the war effort — often with little political dissent.
Political analysts describe this phenomenon as a classical “rally‑round‑the‑flag” effect, where public opinion consolidates during wartime irrespective of the government’s overall popularity. Within Israeli society, foreign policy and security threats — particularly those tied to Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes — have long dominated the national consciousness.
In Tel Aviv, veteran activist Alon‑Lee Green of the Palestinian‑Jewish advocacy group Standing Together noted that efforts to protest the war were met with rapid police intervention, reflecting both the high level of public support and a sensitive atmosphere around dissent during active conflict.
Leadership Frames War as Existential and Historic
Prime Minister Netanyahu, speaking from Jerusalem, has repeatedly framed the operation against Iran as not just a tactical military endeavour but a defining moment in Israel’s history. In public addresses, he has described the campaign as one that will be “recorded in the annals of Israel” and one fought for the security of future generations. In these speeches, the struggle against Iran is often placed in existential terms — as defending the nation from decades of hostile rhetoric and regional interference.
Netanyahu’s messaging resonates particularly strongly among older generations who remember repeated threats from Iran’s leadership and proxy militias. For many Israelis, memories of past wars and missile attacks from Lebanon and Gaza inform their acceptance of expansive military action.
Uncertainty and the Lack of Clear Endgame
Despite overwhelming public support, there is growing unease — among experts and some politicians — about the lack of a well‑defined strategy for achieving long‑term goals in Iran. Even within Israeli security circles, questions have emerged about how a prolonged campaign, focused on airstrikes and targeted operations, might lead to meaningful regime change in Tehran, or whether the country could instead become entrenched in a drawn‑out conflict with unpredictable regional consequences.
Israeli officials themselves acknowledge that success is not guaranteed. While military operations have reportedly degraded Iran’s nuclear and missile‑related infrastructure, analysts point out that dismantling these capabilities entirely — let alone securing the collapse of Iran’s political leadership — remains uncertain. Iranian authorities, despite suffering high‑profile losses, including the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in late February, have maintained internal control and continued retaliatory operations.
More broadly, strategic analysts say that Tehran’s decentralised defence doctrine — designed to absorb shocks from heavy bombardment and stay operational — makes it unlikely that short‑term military actions will achieve decisive victory. Instead, these analysts argue that Iran may be prepared for a long, attritional conflict that external military force alone cannot quickly resolve.
Political and Regional Implications
The domestic political landscape in Israel has also shifted. Opposition figure Yair Lapid has publicly said that he no longer intends to pursue no‑confidence motions against Netanyahu’s government amidst the war, reflecting how national security concerns have overshadowed traditional partisan disputes.
Regionally, the conflict has triggered broader instability. Israel’s ongoing military activities have overlapped with fighting in Lebanon, where the militant group Hezbollah has escalated hostilities, and tensions continue across the Middle East as neighbouring states grapple with the conflict’s ripple effects.
Internationally, leaders have responded with mixed messaging. While the United States, under President Donald Trump, has expressed support for Israel’s actions and claimed progress in degrading Iran’s capabilities, several European leaders have urged a return to diplomacy to avoid a wider regional conflagration.
A War Without a Clear Ending in Sight
For ordinary Israelis, the war’s human and economic costs — compounded by global energy market volatility and regional civilian casualties — are often viewed through the prism of long‑term national security. Yet beneath widespread support lies a complex calculus: a recognition that decisive victory may be elusive and that the path to a stable Middle East might require more than military force.
As the campaign continues, both the government and the public are left to weigh short‑term achievements against the uncertainties of an open‑ended war, where the outcome is not predetermined and the consequences echo far beyond Israel’s borders.