Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has bolstered his domestic support with joint strikes on Iran, but the campaign is stoking international unease that could further isolate Israel.

The military operation, which began last week with strikes killing Iran's supreme leader and targeting nuclear and missile sites, has rallied Israelis around their leader. Opposition leader Yair Lapid, a longtime critic of Netanyahu, has expressed support for what he called a "just war against evil," saying he would set aside political differences with the prime minister.

A poll by the Israel Democracy Institute found 93% of Jewish respondents in Israel – including 76% of those on the left – supported the decision to attack Iran. This surge in approval has helped Netanyahu pivot from domestic criticism, with many seeing the operation as fulfilling his decades-long warnings about Iran's "ring of fire" encircling Israel.

Netanyahu, who has been prime minister for more than 18 years across three non-consecutive terms, has had to navigate dwindling domestic support that largely resulted from ongoing corruption charges and widespread blame for security failures surrounding the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023. The conflict with Iran, however, has bolstered prospects for his political survival in an election year, with his Likud party gaining seats in recent polling.

In Washington, however, the war appears to have eroded Israel's traditionally strong political backing. Debate around the military strikes intensified after comments by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested the US moved preemptively because it expected Iranian retaliation following a planned Israeli strike. The remarks fueled speculation across Congress and the political spectrum that Israeli calculations had shaped the timing of the US decision to enter the conflict.

Both US President Donald Trump and Rubio have since rejected that narrative, insisting the strikes were ordered to counter what they believed was an imminent Iranian threat, but this claim did little to quell growing bipartisan unease. Some lawmakers argued that if Trump acted without clear US-centric objectives, it risked blurring the line between defending American interests and entering a regional war on behalf of an ally. This episode has revived calls in Congress for stricter war-powers oversight and added to the broader debate about the costs of deeper US involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts.

The dispute has also reverberated within Trump's own political base. Parts of the "America First" movement – which has long opposed overseas military entanglements – reacted sharply to suggestions that US forces might be drawn into a conflict driven by Israel's security calculations. Conservative commentators, notably former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson, argued that the perception of Washington fighting "Israel's war" ran counter to the non-interventionist instincts that helped shape Trump's political appeal, highlighting new strains in the political consensus that has traditionally underpinned strong US support for Israel.

Similarly, Israel's diplomatic position has weakened further elsewhere. The scale of its military operations, especially in Gaza where civilian casualties have drawn global attention, has complicated its relations across the Middle East, even with countries that previously normalized ties.

Closer to the conflict zone, Gulf states are reeling from Iran's retaliatory strikes targeting US assets. These oil-rich nations have long sought to avoid war with Iran, but the US-Israeli strikes have intensified their frustration, particularly with Israel. Officials from several Gulf countries expressed displeasure at being left uninformed before the February 28 attacks and criticized the US for prioritizing the defense of Israel and American troops over their own security, leaving their air defenses rapidly depleting as Iran launched hundreds of missiles and drones into the region, The Associated Press reported citing anonymous sources. Meanwhile, public figures tied to Gulf governments openly blamed Netanyahu for dragging the US into a conflict they see as unnecessary.

While Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain have condemned Iran's retaliatory strikes, analysts say that over time, they may begin to question if maintaining close ties with Israel brings more risks than benefits.

"If the war – which is already expected to last for weeks – drags on with no resolution, with the Strait of Hormuz and much of the Gulf's airspace closed, both the US, but mainly Israel, will be held responsible," wrote Yossi Mekelberg, a senior consulting fellow from the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, on its website.

The US-Israeli operation has once again reinforced the perception that Israel acts "under US protection with disregard for international law and lacking any legal basis for its military adventure," Mekelberg added.