Trump and Netanyahu Clash, Exposing Deep Rifts in US-Israel Relations

Does President Trump hold genuine leverage over Prime Minister Netanyahu, and can he truly use it? Experts claim the recent clash has exposed deepening rifts between the two leaders. The latest surge in hostilities between Israel and Iran has revealed what some observers say is the most significant fracture yet in their relationship. This situation highlights increasingly divergent interests between Washington and Jerusalem. However, other analysts question whether public friction reflects real frustrations within the US. They also wonder if Netanyahu's defiance suggests American influence over Israel is more limited than assumed.

The pair once appeared politically inseparable. Netanyahu described Trump as the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House. Trump returned the praise with equal fervor. During a 2025 appearance in Israel, he joked that dealing with Netanyahu was difficult but made him great. Trump is no longer joking. Last week, he reportedly called Netanyahu "f***ing crazy" during a phone call. He accused the Israeli leader of undermining US diplomacy. Trump also warned that Israel's military escalation risked derailing peace talks with Iran.

Tensions became apparent when Iran launched a volley of missiles toward northern Israel on Sunday. This attack followed an Israeli strike in Beirut's southern suburbs on June 7. It occurred despite US assurances just days before that such an attack would not happen. The missile strike was the first by Iran since a fragile ceasefire reached two months earlier. That agreement was brokered by Pakistan between the US and Iran. The attack threatened to unravel months of negotiations. "He will have no choice," Trump told the Financial Times regarding a possible peace agreement. "I call the shots. I call all the shots. He doesn't call the shots."

Iran and Israel have since halted attacks on one another. Yet the confrontation raises questions about Netanyahu's ability to continue wars in Iran and Lebanon without US backing. What lies at the core of this US-Israel disagreement? Ultimately, observers say the two leaders are driven by conflicting political interests. In the US, the war with Iran is deeply unpopular. Therefore, Trump needs to reach a deal with Iran to end the conflict. Netanyahu, conversely, could benefit politically at home if the fighting continues.

In fact, as soon as Trump and Netanyahu jointly launched missile strikes on Iran at the end of February, their objectives began to drift apart. Israel's leadership had suggested the conflict could deliver a rapid victory. They hoped this might weaken or even topple Iran's government. They also believed it could cripple Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. But Yossi Mekelberg, a Middle East analyst at Chatham House, said these assumptions quickly collapsed. "The war didn't go the way they wanted it to go," he told Al Jazeera. "The biggest failure was assuming it would be nice and quick and would achieve its objectives." They thought it would bring regime change. They believed this would end Iran's nuclear program. Obviously, that was a complete failure. The conflict also created economic consequences that threatened Trump's own domestic political interests.

When Iran effectively shut down the Strait of Hormuz—a critical chokepoint through which one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas flows during peacetime—world energy markets trembled and oil prices spiked. Mekelberg observed that Washington seemed unprepared for a collapse many analysts had predicted, stating, "The United States didn't appear to think strategically about how it would keep the Strait of Hormuz open. It shows an inability to think strategically in this administration."

With fuel costs climbing and Democrats positioning themselves for gains in November's midterm elections, President Trump faces a powerful incentive to secure a swift resolution. He has little desire to sustain a prolonged Middle East crisis while preparing to host the football World Cup. Ultimately, despite the historical bond between Israel and the United States, Mekelberg argues that Trump's relationship with Netanyahu remains fundamentally transactional. "Trump is egotistical and self-absorbed," he noted. "It's a transactional relationship. It depends on how good the transaction is, and when it doesn't work for you – as we see with Trump, this is his method. 'I'm your friend' until it no longer serves his interests."

On a deeper level, the region faces a serious unraveling. As interests diverge, the two nations clash in an increasingly asymmetric manner. As Israel faces growing international isolation over its war in Gaza, efforts to annex the West Bank, and broader regional conflicts, the United States remains its primary diplomatic shield, military supplier, and financial backer. This reliance has intensified as Israel's traditional European allies have begun to distance themselves from Netanyahu's government.

Washington provides Israel with at least $3.8 billion annually under a decade-long military assistance agreement spanning from 2019 to 2028. This package includes $3.3 billion through the Foreign Military Financing programme and an additional $500 million for joint missile-defence initiatives. An Al Jazeera investigation recently revealed that 42 percent of weapons entering Israel originated from the United States.

Gideon Levy, an Israeli journalist and author, told Al Jazeera that this dependence leaves Netanyahu with minimal room to maneuver. "Israel is not in a position to say no to Donald Trump, and Netanyahu is not in a position to say no," Levy said. "Israeli dependence on the US right now has reached an unprecedented stage, and Israel cannot take on Iran without the United States. The reality on the ground is that whatever Trump tells Netanyahu, he will have to do exactly as Trump phrased it."

Yet, if such leverage exists, what explains Netanyahu's decision to proceed with strikes on Iran in the early hours of Monday, disregarding Trump's instructions to refrain? Analysts suggest the answer lies in the collision between Trump's push for a ceasefire and Netanyahu's domestic ambitions. This dynamic incentivizes the Israeli leader to test the boundaries with a president who himself relies heavily on influential pro-Israeli lobbies for political and financial support.

The war with Iran has proven popular within Israel, where public backing for military action remains overwhelming. Levy pointed out that polling indicates support for the attack on Iran stands at roughly 93 percent. "Traditionally in Israel, you can much easier get consensus for a major majority by launching another war, rather than any diplomatic agreement," Levy said. With Israeli elections scheduled before the end of October, some analysts argue that continued confrontation serves Netanyahu's political interests.

Washington seems increasingly determined to forge a diplomatic resolution with Tehran. While indirect talks proceed through Pakistani intermediaries, Israel remains entirely excluded from the process. Intelligence indicates that any resulting pact would preserve the Iranian regime and allow a limited, ongoing nuclear capability. Tehran reportedly insists that the agreement must block future Israeli strikes on Hezbollah within Lebanon. Such a deal could trap Israel in a dangerous position where an attack on Beirut triggers Iranian retaliation without guaranteed American support—a prospect Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finds unacceptable.

Levi Avni, a political analyst, describes Netanyahu's predicament as a specific deadlock. The prime minister's lifelong project involved defeating Iran through force, yet recent negotiations have disproven that strategy. An accord that forbids further Israeli military action in Lebanon would undermine Israel's reputation for military supremacy and widen fractures inside Netanyahu's coalition. These tensions are already surfacing within Israeli political circles. Although Netanyahu reportedly pressures ministers to sidestep public clashes with Washington, his own defense minister insists that military objectives persist regardless of American rhetoric.

Itamar Ben-Gvir, the far-right National Security Minister whose backing sustains Netanyahu's government, recently issued a stark warning. He stated that Israel must define clear boundaries with the United States. "We need to make clear to Trump that we have red lines, and if we're attacked from Lebanon or from Iran, that's a red line, and we have to respond," Ben-Gvir said. The ongoing conflict also serves as a distraction from Netanyahu's corruption trial, which is entering its sixth year. With an International Criminal Court arrest warrant pending over his actions in Gaza, losing power could expose him to severe legal consequences if he fails to win re-election. Analysts suggest that holding onto office might be his primary goal, forcing him to balance on an increasingly narrow tightrope.

Critics question whether this diplomatic rift represents a genuine shift or merely political theater. Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC and adviser to Jewish Voice for Peace, argues that Trump's criticism lacks corresponding action. "The words could be significant if they were matched by actions," she told Al Jazeera. "What we see now are a set of words – 'You better be careful; you'll find yourself acting alone' – that are not backed up by actions." Bennis pointed out that Washington continues to deliver billions in military aid to protect Israel from accountability at the International Court of Justice and to sustain weapon shipments. She compared Trump's stance to President Joe Biden's approach during the early stages of the war on Gaza. "The leadership would say, 'Please stop killing so many Palestinians'," Bennis said, "while continuing to supply weapons and funding … The words just don't mean very much.