Nearly three years later, Israel remains engaged on multiple fronts, raising an increasingly important question: Why does the country continue to fight wars with no clear end in sight?

The ongoing conflict in Gaza, repeated airstrikes in Lebanon, military operations in Syria, attacks on Houthi targets in Yemen, and direct confrontations with Iran have reinforced the perception that Israel has adopted a strategy of continuous military engagement rather than long-term diplomatic resolution.

The question resurfaced following the recent U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Despite the agreement, Israeli forces continued launching strikes in southern Lebanon, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israeli troops would not withdraw from occupied areas.

Tehran described the attacks as a violation of the U.S.-Iran agreement and warned that negotiations could not advance unless the Lebanon ceasefire was fully implemented.

Why are Israelis unhappy with the U.S.-Iran deal?

A recent Israeli opinion poll suggests widespread dissatisfaction with Washington s decision to pursue an understanding with Tehran.

According to the survey, nearly 92 percent of Israelis believe the United States compromised what they view as Israel s long-term strategic advantage over Iran.

Almost half of those surveyed also said Israel should continue military operations in Lebanon regardless of U.S. pressure.

The findings indicate that a significant portion of Israeli society continues to view military force—not diplomacy—as the most effective means of guaranteeing national security.

Fighting on multiple fronts

Since October 2023, Israel has expanded its military operations far beyond Gaza.

Its campaign against Hamas has devastated large parts of the enclave, while Israeli forces have simultaneously carried out extensive airstrikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Israeli military has also conducted operations inside Syria, launched attacks against Houthi positions in Yemen, and twice engaged in direct military confrontation with Iran.

Israeli officials argue that these operations are designed to eliminate future threats before they materialize. Critics, however, contend that the strategy has instead widened regional instability and increased the risk of a prolonged conflict across the Middle East.

The U.S.-Iran agreement and Israel s concerns

The recently signed interim Memorandum of Understanding between Washington and Tehran established a 60-day negotiating framework covering Iran s nuclear programme, sanctions relief, maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz, and a cessation of military operations across multiple fronts, including Lebanon. Israel, however, is not a signatory to the agreement.

That has allowed Tel Aviv to continue its military campaign in Lebanon, while Iran insists that Washington bears responsibility for ensuring Israel respects the ceasefire provisions outlined in the agreement.

Is Israel trying to undermine the agreement?

Many regional analysts believe Israel fears that improved U.S.-Iran relations could fundamentally alter the region s security architecture.

From Israel s perspective, sustained pressure on Tehran remains essential, and any easing of sanctions or normalization of relations could strengthen Iran economically and strategically in the long term.

Domestic politics also play a role

Several Israeli political analysts argue that Israel s continued military campaigns are driven not only by security concerns but also by domestic political considerations.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to face criticism over the October 7 attack, corruption charges, and growing political pressure ahead of future elections.

Israeli political analyst Shaiel Ben-Ephraim argues that Netanyahu believes remaining in a wartime environment reduces political pressure and delays accountability for both his legal challenges and the failures surrounding the October 2023 attack.

A rare political consensus

Despite deep political divisions inside Israel, there is broad agreement across much of the political spectrum regarding military policy.

Former Israeli military chief Gadi Eisenkot described the strikes against Iran as "the most justified war in recent decades," while opposition leader Yair Lapid also supported military action against Tehran, even as he criticized Washington s decision to negotiate with Iran.

This suggests that a hard-line approach toward Iran and its regional allies enjoys support across Israel s major political parties.

The psychology of permanent insecurity

According to Israeli sociologist Daniel Bar-Tal of Tel Aviv University, the October 7 attack fundamentally reshaped Israeli public consciousness.

He argues that many Israelis no longer see the attack as an isolated terrorist incident but rather as part of a much longer historical narrative tied to Jewish persecution and the Holocaust.

As a result, national identity, collective victimhood, and the perception of permanent external threats have become even more deeply embedded in Israeli society, making military action appear both necessary and justified to much of the public.

Has Israel become more secure?

That remains one of the central questions. Despite years of continuous military operations, Hamas continues to operate in parts of Gaza. Hezbollah remains a powerful force in Lebanon, while Iran s political leadership remains firmly in power.

Critics therefore argue that Israel s military campaigns have not fully achieved their stated strategic objectives despite the enormous human and economic costs.

Why Lebanon has become the key battleground

Lebanon has emerged as perhaps the most sensitive issue in the current U.S.-Iran diplomatic process.

Iran has made it clear that meaningful progress in negotiations depends on a complete halt to Israeli military operations in Lebanon. Israel, meanwhile, insists it cannot withdraw from southern Lebanon if it believes doing so would jeopardize its national security.

That disagreement has become one of the biggest obstacles facing the ongoing diplomatic effort.

What happens next?

Technical negotiations involving the United States, Iran, Pakistan, and Qatar are expected to continue over the coming weeks.

The talks will focus on Iran s nuclear programme, sanctions relief, frozen Iranian assets, and the implementation of ceasefire arrangements in Lebanon.

However, continued Israeli military operations could jeopardize not only the Lebanon ceasefire but also the broader U.S.-Iran negotiating process.

Can Israel s "forever wars" finally end?

For now, the answer remains uncertain. Israeli leaders continue to argue that military force is essential to eliminate future threats, while Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other regional actors remain unwilling to fundamentally alter their positions.

Every new diplomatic agreement raises hopes of de-escalation, but developments on the ground continue to demonstrate that ceasefires alone cannot deliver lasting peace.

Without political trust, enforceable guarantees, and sustained commitment from all sides, the Middle East is likely to remain vulnerable to recurring cycles of conflict.

Whether the current negotiations ultimately reshape the region or simply delay the next confrontation may become clear in the months ahead.