Jerusalem —
When Israeli and American fighter jets struck Iran in unison on February 28, President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu celebrated each other’s “historic decisions.” The alliance between the two countries, Netanyahu told Israelis, had never been closer.
Three months later, what began as a joint military campaign appears to be ending as an American-led diplomatic process in which Netanyahu finds himself largely sidelined.
The Israeli prime minister has refrained from openly criticizing Trump, but behind closed doors, Israeli sources say, he has acknowledged Israel has limited influence on the outcome of US-Iran negotiations to end the war.
Since the initial ceasefire was announced in April, Netanyahu repeatedly pressed Trump to resume full-scale military operations, arguing that sustained pressure could still lead to the collapse of the Iranian regime. But the White House appears to have moved in the opposite direction.
Now, sources say, the prime minister is worried that the emerging deal will leave Israel’s core concerns – Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, its ballistic missile program and regional proxy network – largely unaddressed, while easing economic pressure on Tehran.
“There is a real concern that Trump will settle for a bad interim deal,” an Israeli official told CNN. “If it’s a deal, in which the uranium is actually removed, fine. But if it’s only a statement of intentions, the Iranians could play the Americans and ultimately not remove the uranium.”
Iran has repeatedly said that the fate of its stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium is not part of the interim agreement being negotiated. Trump has said the material should ultimately be removed from Iran and transferred to the US, but has recently signaled flexibility on the issue. US and Israeli officials are concerned that it could provide Iran with a pathway to a nuclear weapon.
Netanyahu has pushed to strike Iran’s oil facilities to accelerate the regime’s collapse, the official said.
“If the (US) blockade (of Iran’s ports) is lifted – and even more so if it’s done as part of a bad deal – it would be very bad and would significantly strengthen the regime,” the official said. “Instead of bringing it to a point where it can’t pay salaries to soldiers and police, they would be injecting it with money and funding their recovery.”
Another Israeli source put it more bluntly. “So this is how it feels when Trump throws us under the bus,” the source told CNN.
Another major sticking point is Lebanon. Iran is reportedly pushing for the agreement to include a ceasefire in Lebanon, where the US has already restrained Israeli actions, while Hezbollah has intensified its drone attacks on Israeli troops and northern border communities.
In recent days, Netanyahu has instructed the Israeli military to expand its operations in Lebanon, insisting Israel has freedom of operations there and will continue to act against any threat.
But the US limitations are putting mounting pressure on Netanyahu, both from political rivals and members of his own coalition. Netanyahu’s far-right political allies, ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, have both called for a more aggressive military response.
Ben Gvir urged Netanyahu to confront Trump “and make it clear that the State of Israel cannot tolerate this.”
Despite Israel’s displeasure with the emerging agreement, its relatively muted response stands in stark contrast to the fierce campaign Netanyahu waged against the 2015 Iran nuclear deal signed by former President Barack Obama. That effort culminated in a controversial address to Congress in which the prime minister argued that the agreement was a historic mistake. With Trump, that option is not in the cards.
Netanyahu has poured much of his political capital into the relationship with Trump. Publicly challenging him could carry even more significant political risk, particularly with elections on the horizon.
Instead, sources say, Netanyahu lays the blame at the feet of the US negotiators – Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff – for steering the president toward an end to the hostilities. Pro-Netanyahu media have attacked the negotiations team, keeping the prime minister at arm’s length from the criticism.
“Kushner, Witkoff and Vance chose the economic world over the existential one,” Yaakov Bardugo, a television anchor seen as very close to the prime minister, said on the pro-Netanyahu Channel 14 this week. “With all due respect to the deals they are making, we are the ones who live here.”
But a person familiar with the US-Israel discussions said the gap reflects a deeper misreading on Israel’s part.
“Israelis were so invested in regime change in Iran that they did not fully comprehend the war could lead to a regime change in DC,” the source said. Trump, the source added, recognized that the narrative that Israel was pulling the US into a major Middle Eastern war was politically damaging and moved to reassert control.
“Trump saw that the ‘Bibi wagging his dog’ narrative was killing him, so he had to show he was calling the shots,” the person said, using Netanyahu’s nickname.
Trump himself appeared to make that point last week.
“Bibi’s a good guy, he’ll do what I tell him,” he said.
This is not the first time Trump has abruptly ended one of Netanyahu’s wars. In Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon, it was Trump who called time out. Trump forced Netanyahu’s hand, even as Israel’s longest-serving leader wanted to keep the wars going.
People who have worked closely with the Israeli premier over the years describe what they see as a consistent pattern. “Netanyahu never knows when to stop and cut his (losses),” said one such person.
Critics accuse him of failing to translate tactical and operational military successes into strategic gains. “Netanyahu has one significantly strategic weakness – the lack of will or ability to make difficult decisions that complement military moves,” a former Israeli security official said. “That is why Israel’s strategic position has not improved and has even worsened. Iran’s regime remains in place, its nuclear program unresolved, and regional (proxies) – including Hezbollah and Hamas – are still active.”
The outcome of the war may also complicate the prime minister’s political narrative ahead of the upcoming elections.
The Iran campaign was supposed to be a central pillar in his effort to reshape his legacy after Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel, and he was planning on marketing a vision of a transformed Middle East.
A recent poll from Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies found that 45% of Israelis believe the situation with Iran has worsened compared to before October 7, while 31% believe it has improved. Nearly half of respondents believe that Israel will probably not win or has already lost the war against Iran, the poll found, while only 41% remain optimistic Israel is going to win.
Israeli sources view Trump’s pressure on Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to normalize relations with Israel and expand the Abraham Accords as a form of political compensation. But they remain skeptical of a genuine breakthrough, given Saudi demands for a credible pathway to Palestinian statehood and the constraints imposed by Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition.
Trump may provide Netanyahu with further political compensation ahead of the election campaign, one of the sources said, in the form of a presidential visit, supportive statements or defense agreements that will showcase their strong alliance.
The implications, however, may run deeper than the immediate electoral cycle – and reach the central narrative of Netanyahu’s political career. For over three decades, he defined himself as the leader who would confront Iran’s nuclear ambitions through sustained pressure, military strength and close coordination with Washington.
“It’s hard to overstate how deeply Netanyahu views this moment as a possible personal and political defeat,” Danny Citrinowicz, a senior researcher at the INSS, said.
Netanyahu, he wrote on X, built his political identity around being “Mr. Iran” – the leader who insisted that only force could stop the regime. Now, after what Citrinowicz described as “multiple rounds of operational successes but one resounding strategic failure,” Netanyahu may be forced to accept an agreement that “not only legitimizes the very regime he sought to weaken but also exposes the collapse of his long-standing Iran doctrine.”
