Trump Has Only One Option Left: Get Netanyahu Down From the Tree

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard launched strikes on targets inside the Zionist entity on the evening of 7 June 2026, in response to the bombing of a residential building in Beirut’s southern suburbs earlier that same day.

According to the Revolutionary Guard, the attack on the suburb constituted a violation of the understanding established on 2 June 2026 following Iranian threats to strike northern occupied Palestine if Benjamin Netanyahu and his government carried out their threats to target civilian facilities in Beirut’s southern suburbs and the Lebanese capital. Those threats had been tied to every “Ababil” drone launched by Hezbollah against Zionist occupation forces operating in Lebanon.

US President Donald Trump had reportedly invested significant political capital in a tense phone conversation with Netanyahu, pressing him to adhere to the new arrangement and avoid further escalation if his forces came under drone attacks that the Zionist entity had proven unable to stop effectively.

Netanyahu’s decision to bomb the building on 7 June directly challenged that arrangement. Statements subsequently emerged indicating that the United States had been informed prior to the strike, creating the impression that Washington had either approved or covered the operation. However, US officials denied having authorised the attack and urged Netanyahu to exercise restraint in responding to the Iranian retaliation.

Netanyahu, however, had been forced by Trump to accept an arrangement he was deeply uncomfortable with. At the same time, he appeared intent on undermining reports suggesting that a potential agreement with Iran was drawing closer through Pakistani and Qatari mediation efforts. This pattern had become familiar. Previous rounds of negotiations under Trump had repeatedly approached the point of agreement before suddenly collapsing amid renewed threats of military action and war.

The same scenario unfolded during the latest negotiations. Talks reportedly came close to producing a memorandum of understanding before Trump reversed course, citing the need to delay the process and review the terms more carefully.

As a result, the situation evolved into something resembling the old proverb about sunshine and rain falling on the same roof at the same time.

Since Trump announced a ceasefire after the 40 day war, the following 60 days have been characterised by a dual track policy:

• Negotiations and exchanges of messages.
• Repeated threats of returning to war or engaging in limited military action.

Remarkably, Trump did not consider the exchange of fire that occurred in places such as the Strait of Hormuz and southern Iran to be a violation of the ceasefire arrangement. In effect, he sought to transform limited military exchanges into a fourth element within a broader framework that combined communication, ceasefire commitments, threats of renewed conflict, and controlled military pressure.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, continued pursuing a different objective. He sought the continuation of a broader regional war while simultaneously maintaining ongoing military campaigns in both Lebanon and Gaza.

This reality caused Trump’s relationship with Netanyahu to fluctuate between support and political cover, particularly regarding Gaza and Lebanon, and efforts to compel him, even temporarily, to respect ceasefire agreements. The situation eventually produced a series of arrangements concerning Gaza, including the formation of what became known as the Peace Council, while Netanyahu was effectively allowed to maintain control over an estimated 55 to 60 percent of the Gaza Strip and continue a state of semi-war marked by gradual territorial expansion.

Trump adopted a similar approach regarding Beirut and its southern suburbs. He pressured Netanyahu to observe the ceasefire there while largely overlooking the military campaign being carried out in southern Lebanon.

At this stage, Trump faces a critical choice. He must either force Netanyahu to submit to his broader political strategy or risk being dragged alongside him into a wider war.

This dilemma comes at a particularly sensitive moment, with the Strait of Hormuz crisis and the upcoming US midterm elections expected to dominate the political landscape.

Yet the developments that followed the 40 day war have increasingly moved beyond Trump’s ability to control. He is now confronted with the need to alter his previous approach, particularly as the World Cup approaches and preparations intensify for celebrations marking the 250th anniversary of American independence.

At the same time, Trump faces pressure from multiple directions. These include the need to resolve tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, growing efforts to challenge restrictions on Iranian ports, declining approval ratings within the United States, the approach of the midterm elections, and worsening economic difficulties both domestically and internationally.

Added to these challenges is the growing recognition that the primary objective for which the war was launched, namely regime change in Iran, appears increasingly unattainable.

This is not solely because of the resilience of Iran’s leadership, the cohesion of its political system, or the unity displayed by large segments of Iranian society. It is also a result of Iran’s ability to demonstrate political and military parity in managing the conflict.

Taken together, these realities have pushed Trump towards seeking some form of agreement rather than becoming further entangled in the return to war that Netanyahu appears to favour.

This is particularly true after Trump demonstrated a commitment to ensuring that any ceasefire arrangement, or future agreement, extends to Lebanon and potentially Gaza as well. Such a position has further strained relations between Trump and Netanyahu, a tension that reportedly surfaced during one of their most recent telephone conversations.

At this point, the US president appears to have little alternative but to step back and pursue an understanding with Iran, one that also encompasses Lebanon. The renewed exchange of strikes between Iran and the Zionist entity on 8 June highlighted the urgency of this reality.

For that reason, Trump now faces a stark choice. He must either compel Netanyahu to comply with his policies or descend with him into the abyss of a broader war.

This challenge arrives at a decisive moment, shaped by the desire to ensure a successful World Cup, resolve the Strait of Hormuz crisis, and navigate the US midterm elections that may ultimately determine the future of Trump’s presidency.