The latest escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran has exposed what some analysts call the most significant rift yet in the relationship between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump, exposing increasingly divergent interests between the two leaders. This is what Kaolan Magee writes for Al Jazeera.
But other analysts question whether the public friction between the two represents genuine frustration on the part of the US and whether Netanyahu's apparent defiance of Trump suggests that Washington's influence over Israel is more limited than is often assumed.
The two once seemed politically inseparable. Netanyahu has described Trump as "the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House". Trump has returned the praise. During a visit to Israel in 2025, he joked, "He's not easy - he's not the easiest guy to work with, but that's what makes him great."
Trump is no longer joking. Last week, he called Netanyahu "crazy" in a phone call, accused him of undermining American diplomacy and warned that Israel's military escalation risks derailing peace talks with Iran. The tensions became apparent when Iran fired a salvo of missiles into northern Israel on June 7, following an Israeli strike on the southern suburbs of Beirut, despite U.S. assurances just days earlier that this would not happen. The missile attack, the first by Iran since a fragile ceasefire brokered by Pakistan two months earlier between the US and Iran, threatened to derail months of negotiations.
"He won't have a choice", Trump told the Financial Times when asked about the likelihood of Netanyahu endorsing a peace deal with Iran. "I'm in charge. I'm in charge of everybody. He's not in charge."
Iran and Israel have since stopped attacking each other. But the confrontation has raised questions about whether Netanyahu can continue his wars against Iran and Lebanon without US support.
What is the nature of the US-Israeli disagreement?
According to observers, the two leaders are driven by their own political interests, which are about to collide. In the United States, the war with Iran is deeply unpopular, so Trump needs to make a deal with Iran to end it. Netanyahu, on the other hand, could gain politically at home if it continues.
In fact, as soon as Trump and Netanyahu jointly launched missile strikes on Iran in late February, their goals began to diverge. The Israeli leadership assumed that the conflict could lead to a quick victory, potentially weakening or even overthrowing the Iranian government, while crippling its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
Yossi Mekelberg, a Middle East analyst at Chatham House, pointed out that any such assumptions that underpinned the campaign quickly failed. "The war didn't go the way they wanted," he noted. "The biggest failure was the assumption that it would be easy and quick and they would achieve their goals. They thought the war would bring about regime change and ultimately end Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Obviously, that was a complete failure.”
The conflict also created economic consequences that threaten Trump’s own domestic political interests. When Iran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies pass in peacetime, global energy markets were shaken and oil prices soared.
Meckelberg believes Washington appears unprepared for a scenario that many analysts have long warned was inevitable, noting: “The United States does not seem to be thinking strategically about how to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. It shows a lack of strategic thinking in this administration.”
With oil prices rising and Democrats aiming to win the November midterm elections, Trump has a strong incentive to secure a quick deal and has little appetite for a prolonged crisis in the Middle East as he prepares to host the World Cup. Ultimately, despite the longstanding relationship between Israel and the United States, Trump’s relationship with Netanyahu remains fundamentally transactional, Meckleberg added.
“Trump is selfish and narcissistic,” 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’ve seen with Trump, that’s his method. “I’m your friend” until it no longer serves his interests.
"But at a deeper level, there is a serious problem, which is that they have divided the Middle East. Now, because their interests are different and because each side is pursuing its own interests, they are clashing in a very asymmetrical way."
How many levers of influence does Trump have?
As Israel becomes increasingly isolated internationally because of its genocidal war on Gaza, its attempts to annex the West Bank, and its wars in the region, the United States remains its most important diplomatic protector and major military supplier and financial backer. This is becoming increasingly important as Israel’s traditional European allies have begun to distance themselves from Netanyahu’s government.
Washington provides Israel with at least $3.8 billion a year under a 10-year military aid agreement, valid from 2019 to 2028. That package includes $3.3 billion through the Foreign Military Financing Program and another $500 million for joint missile defense programs. An Al Jazeera investigation recently found that 42% of weapons entering Israel originate from the United States.
Gideon Levy, an Israeli journalist and author, told Al Jazeera that dependence on the United States leaves Netanyahu little 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. "Israel's dependence on the United States has now reached an unprecedented level, and Israel cannot deal with Iran without the United States.
"The reality on the ground is that whatever Trump tells Netanyahu, he will have to do exactly as he says."
But if that is the case, what explains Netanyahu's decision to press ahead with strikes against Iran in the early hours of Monday, despite Trump telling him to refrain from attacking?
Where does Netanyahu stand?
The answer, analysts say, may lie in the fact that Trump's insistence on a ceasefire clashes with Netanyahu's domestic ambitions. This has prompted the Israeli leader to test how far he can push the boundaries with Trump, who also relies heavily on powerful pro-Israel lobbies in the United States for political and financial support.
War with Iran has proven popular in Israel, where public support for military action remains overwhelming. Levy notes that polls show support for an attack on Iran at around 93 percent. "Traditionally, in Israel, it is much easier to reach a majority consensus by starting a new war than by any diplomatic agreement," Levy added.
With elections scheduled in Israel before the end of October, some analysts argue that the ongoing confrontation serves Netanyahu's political interests. The problem is that Washington seems increasingly committed to seeking a diplomatic settlement with Tehran.
The talks between the United States and Iran are being conducted indirectly, through Pakistani intermediaries, but without any Israeli involvement. Reports suggest that any future agreement would leave the Iranian government intact while allowing for a limited but continuing nuclear program.
Tehran has 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 provoke Iranian retaliation without guaranteed U.S. support—a scenario Netanyahu would not be happy with.
"Netanyahu is in a certain impasse," Levy said. "His life project was Iran and the belief that Iran could be defeated by force. That has been proven false in the last two rounds in Iran."
A U.S.-Iran deal that bars 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 in Israeli political circles.
While Netanyahu has reportedly urged ministers to avoid any public confrontation with Washington, his own defense minister has said that Israel’s military goals will continue despite Trump’s comments. The 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 lines with Washington. "We need to make it clear to Trump that we have red lines and if we are attacked by Lebanon or by Iran, that is a red line and we must respond," he said.
The conflict also distracts from Netanyahu’s corruption trial, now in its sixth year. And with an arrest warrant looming for him from the International Criminal Court (ICC) over Israel’s actions in Gaza, the loss of power could expose him to unprecedented legal turmoil if he is not re-elected. Analysts suggest that retaining office may be the Israeli prime minister’s primary military objective, leaving Netanyahu walking an increasingly tightrope.
Is this a real rift or political theater?
Many analysts doubt that the apparent rift between Israel and the United States represents any meaningful change in relations between the two countries. Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington and international advisor to the activist group Jewish Voice for Peace, said Trump's criticisms were not backed up by action.
"Words could be meaningful if they were backed up by action," she told Al Jazeera. "What we're seeing now is a set of words - 'You better be careful; you'll end up acting alone' - that are not backed up by action."
Bennis noted that Washington continues to provide billions of dollars in military aid to shield Israel from liability at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the ICC and to keep the arms flow flowing.
She compared Trump's approach to that of former US President Joe Biden during the early stages of Israel's war on Gaza. "The leadership would say, 'Please stop killing so many Palestinians,'" Bennis said. At the same time, she said, it continues to provide weapons and funding. Words simply don't mean much, she added.