Did Netanyahu really ‘defy’ Trump in bombing Iran? 

The latest flare-up in hostilities between Israel and Iran has exposed what some observers say is the most significant crack yet in the relationship between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and United States President Donald Trump, revealing increasingly divergent interests between the two leaders.

The pair once appeared politically inseparable, with Netanyahu describing Trump as the “greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House”. Trump returned the praise. During a 2025 appearance in Israel, he joked, “He’s not easy – not the easiest guy to deal with – but that’s what makes him great.”

Trump is no longer joking. Last week, he reportedly called Netanyahu “f***ing crazy” during a phone call, accused him of undermining US diplomacy and warned that Israel’s military escalation risked derailing peace talks with Iran.

The tensions became apparent when Iran launched a volley of missiles towards northern Israel on Sunday, following an Israeli strike in Beirut’s southern suburbs on June 7 – despite US assurances just days before that this would not happen. The missile attack, the first by Iran since a fragile, Pakistan-brokered ceasefire reached two months earlier between the US and Iran, threatened to unravel months of negotiations.

“He will have no choice,” Trump told the Financial Times when asked about the likelihood of Netanyahu approving a possible peace agreement with Iran. “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. But the confrontation has left Netanyahu politically constrained, squeezed between pressure from Washington to de-escalate and demands from far-right government ministers urging him to continue the war on Iran and Lebanon, even without US backing. Analysts say that is a position Israel cannot sustain for long.

What is at the core of the US-Israel disagreement?

Ultimately, observers say, the two leaders are driven by their own political interests which are on a collision course. In the US, the war with Iran is deeply unpopular, so Trump needs to reach a deal with Iran to end the war. Netanyahu, on the other hand, could benefit politically at home if it were to continue.

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, potentially weakening or even toppling Iran’s government while crippling its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.

But Yossi Mekelberg, a Middle East analyst at Chatham House, said any such assumptions underpinning the campaign 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 and that, by extension, it would end Iran’s nuclear programme and ballistic missile programme. Obviously, that was a complete failure.”

The conflict also created economic consequences that threatened Trump’s own domestic political interests. When Iran effectively closed off the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies are shipped during peacetime, global energy markets were rattled and oil prices surged.

Mekelberg said Washington had appeared unprepared for a scenario many analysts had long warned was inevitable. “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 prices soaring and Democrats eyeing gains in November’s mid-term congressional elections, Trump has a strong incentive to secure a quick deal, and has little appetite for a prolonged Middle East crisis while preparing to host football’s World Cup.

Ultimately, despite the longstanding relationship between Israel and the US, Trump’s relationship with Netanyahu remains fundamentally transactional, said Mekelberg.

“Trump is egotistical and self-absorbed,” he said. “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.

“But, on a deeper level, there is a serious issue, which is that they have unravelled the Middle East. Now, because their interests diverge, and because each side is pursuing its own interests, they clash in a very asymmetric way.”

How much leverage does Trump have?

As Israel becomes increasingly isolated internationally over its conduct in Gaza, the West Bank and across the region, the US remains its most important diplomatic protector and its main military supplier and financial backer. This has become increasingly important as Israel’s traditional European allies have begun distancing themselves from Netanyahu’s government.

Washington provides Israel with at least $3.8bn annually under a 10-year military assistance agreement running from 2019 to 2028. That package includes $3.3bn through the Foreign Military Financing programme and another $500m for joint missile-defence programmes.

An Al Jazeera investigation recently found that 42 percent of weapons entering Israel originated from the United States.

Gideon Levy, the Israeli journalist and author, told Al Jazeera that dependence on the US leaves Netanyahu with little room to manoeuvre. “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.”

So, where does Netanyahu stand?

Trump’s push for a ceasefire collides with Netanyahu’s domestic ambitions. The war with Iran has proved popular inside Israel, where public support for military action remains overwhelming.

Levy noted that polling shows 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 elections due before the end of October, some analysts say continued confrontation would therefore serve Netanyahu’s political interests. The problem is that Washington increasingly appears committed to pursuing a diplomatic settlement with Tehran.

The negotiations between the US and Iran are taking place indirectly, via Pakistani mediators, but without Israeli participation at all. Reports suggest any future agreement would leave Iran’s government intact while permitting a restricted but continuing nuclear programme.

Tehran has also reportedly demanded that any deal prevent Israel from launching future military operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Under such a deal, an Israeli strike on Beirut could risk provoking Iranian retaliation without guaranteed US backing – a scenario Netanyahu would not be happy about.

“Netanyahu is in a certain deadlock,” Levy said. “The project of his life was Iran and the belief that Iran can be defeated by force. This was proven false in the last two rounds in Iran.”

A deal between the US and Iran which prohibits Israel from further military action in Lebanon would risk damaging Israel’s carefully cultivated image of military dominance while deepening divisions within Netanyahu’s coalition, and those tensions are already emerging within Israeli political circles.

While Netanyahu has reportedly urged ministers to avoid any public confrontations with Washington, his own defence minister has said Israel’s military objectives will continue despite Trump’s comments.

Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir – whose support Netanyahu’s government relies on to stay in power – recently warned that Israel must draw clear limits with Washington.

“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,” he said.

The conflict has also provided a distraction from Netanyahu’s corruption trial as it stretches into its sixth year. And with an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant hanging over him for Israel’s actions in Gaza, losing power could expose him to unprecedented legal turmoil should he fail to be re-elected. Analysts have suggested that retaining office may be the Israeli prime minister’s main military objective, leaving Netanyahu walking an increasingly narrow tightrope.

Is this a real split or just political theatre?

Many analysts doubt the apparent rift between Israel and the US represents any sort of meaningful shift in relations between the two.

Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC, and international adviser to the activist group Jewish Voice for Peace, argued that Trump’s criticism had not been matched by 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 noted that Washington continues to provide billions of dollars in military assistance, to shield Israel from accountability at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and ICC, and to keep weapons flowing.

She compared Trump’s approach to that of former US President Joe Biden during the first stages of Israel’s 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.”