Loading latest news…
Theo Jorden
A phone call between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on July 3 ended with an agreement to meet in the United States in the near future, according to Netanyahu’s office. The development comes after weeks of the most public and pointed friction in the history of their alliance, friction rooted almost
A phone call between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on July 3 ended with an agreement to meet in the United States in the near future, according to Netanyahu’s office. The development comes after weeks of the most public and pointed friction in the history of their alliance, friction rooted almost entirely in disagreement over how the Iran War was brought to a close and what its terms mean for Israel’s security.
The planned meeting will be the first face to face encounter between the two leaders since the United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, a framework deal that ended direct military hostilities, reopened the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping and set a 60 day window for further nuclear negotiations. Netanyahu was not consulted on the final text. For many in Israel, that exclusion was the clearest signal yet that Washington’s priorities and Tel Aviv’s no longer align as neatly as they once did.
The acrimony between Trump and Netanyahu spilled into full public view weeks before the agreement was even signed. In early June, after Israeli forces struck a Hezbollah stronghold in Beirut in a move that threatened to unravel the ceasefire with Iran, Trump contacted Netanyahu in what multiple US officials described as an expletive laden call. Trump reportedly told the Israeli prime minister he was acting recklessly and that his Lebanon campaign risked isolating Israel entirely on the world stage.
Trump later confirmed the exchange publicly, telling the New York Post that he had been “a little perturbed” at Netanyahu’s continued fighting in Lebanon. He acknowledged calling Netanyahu “f-cking crazy” and reportedly added that the Israeli leader would be “in prison if not for me.” Even as he made those comments, however, Trump insisted the two leaders “work very well together” and that the relationship remained intact.
Netanyahu’s response was measured. He acknowledged “tactical disagreements” while insisting that both leaders shared the same core objective of neutralizing the threat from Iran and its network of regional proxies. Netanyahu said publicly that he told Trump directly: if Hezbollah does not stop attacking Israeli cities, Israel will continue to strike targets in Beirut.
The depth of the tension becomes clearer when examined against what Israel believes the Iran deal failed to achieve. The memorandum of understanding does not require Iran to dismantle its ballistic missile program. It does not address Tehran’s support for proxy groups across the region. And it allows Iran to continue enriching uranium at some level, with a temporary moratorium rather than a structural prohibition on nuclear development.
Perhaps most jarring for Israeli officials is the arrangement that gives Iran a formal oversight role alongside Oman in managing Strait of Hormuz traffic. Trump described the reopening of the waterway in celebratory terms, declaring on Truth Social: “Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!” But from Jerusalem’s vantage point, granting Tehran any institutionalized authority over that corridor amounts to a concession with lasting consequences.
Atlantic Council analysts noted that Trump refused to share a preliminary text of the memorandum with Netanyahu and had described Iranian negotiators as “very rational people” while bringing Netanyahu’s judgment into question. Trump reportedly warned the Israeli prime minister: “You better be careful, or you will be on your own very soon.”
An Israeli survey conducted after the agreement was announced found that 71 percent of Israeli respondents said they no longer trusted the Trump administration to safeguard Israeli interests in the ongoing Iran negotiations. Only 11 percent believed Israel had “won” the war it co launched with the United States in February.
Despite the scale of the public disagreement, both leaders appear to have calculated that the relationship is too strategically important to allow it to deteriorate further. The meeting, when it takes place, will function largely as a reset mechanism, an opportunity for both sides to present their positions directly before Israel heads into parliamentary elections in October.
The implications for broader US foreign policy are considerable. The Iran War, launched without congressional authorization on February 28, has already prompted both chambers of Congress to pass a war powers resolution directing Trump to halt hostilities unless explicitly authorized by lawmakers. That vote, while nonbinding, reflects bipartisan unease about how the conflict was conducted and how it was concluded.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been working to reassure allies across the region that Washington’s security commitments remain firm. But as Chatham House analysts observed this week, what is different now is that the tensions between the US and Israel are unlikely to simply dissolve once this particular chapter closes. Instead, Israel faces a diminished international standing, strained regional relationships and a domestic political crisis tied directly to the terms of a deal its prime minister had no hand in shaping.
For a full breakdown of how the US Iran memorandum of understanding reshaped the balance of power across the Persian Gulf, see our analysis on Trump’s Iran deal and Gulf allies’ response.
The meeting between Trump and Netanyahu, whenever it happens, is unlikely to resolve the underlying fault lines that the Iran War exposed. What it may do is define, more explicitly than anything yet said publicly, where the limits of this alliance now sit.
For the latest US foreign policy news as negotiations continue in Switzerland, follow ongoing coverage at Council on Foreign Relations.
References and Sources
How control of the strait became the defining leverage point in the Iran negotiations.
Inside the back-channel diplomacy pushing toward a signed agreement.
The fragile ceasefire is holding even as broader negotiations hit roadblocks.
