US news outlet Axios revealed new details on Saturday about discussions between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the anticipated agreement between Washington and Tehran, describing the potential deal as a severe setback to Israeli ambitions.
During what Axios described as a phone call carrying “news Netanyahu did not want to hear”, President Trump informed the Israeli leader on Thursday evening that he was close to signing an agreement with Iran within days, according to US and Israeli officials cited by the outlet.
Axios argued that for Netanyahu, ending the war with Iran through an agreement that falls short of his declared objectives would amount to a major strategic and political defeat. From the outset, he had reportedly believed the conflict would contribute to regime change in Tehran, a goal that now appears increasingly out of reach.
Netanyahu Unable to Stop the Agreement
American sources told Axios that Netanyahu realised during the call that he was unable to prevent Trump from moving ahead with the agreement. Some officials in Washington believe he may still attempt to obstruct the deal even after it is signed.
The outlet also reported that Trump’s public announcement declaring the war with Iran over, made through social media posts, caught Netanyahu by surprise. The Israeli prime minister reportedly reached out to allies in Washington seeking details about the announcement and has since found himself largely excluded from the flow of information.
Trump reportedly told Netanyahu:
“This is the deal. It’s a great deal, and it’s time to end this war.”
Netanyahu, in response, told Trump that he trusted him to ensure any final agreement would address their shared concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear programme.
Public Silence, Private Doubts
Axios noted that Netanyahu and officials in Tel Aviv have become increasingly cautious about criticising Trump publicly for fear of provoking him. Privately, however, they remain “highly sceptical” of the proposed agreement.
Among Israel’s main concerns is the possibility that Iran could prolong negotiations without making meaningful concessions on its nuclear activities. Such an outcome, Israeli officials fear, would allow Tehran to stabilise its economy by resuming oil exports without the threat of war.
Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Friday that Trump was pursuing an agreement “based on his assessment of American interests”, but insisted that Tel Aviv expects Washington to maintain what he described as shared principles concerning Iran’s nuclear programme, ballistic missiles, and armed groups across the region.
Katz also claimed that Israel had retained the ability to “act independently to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon” and would continue to prepare accordingly.
Concerns Over Lebanon and Hezbollah
Axios reported that Israeli officials are also worried that because the ceasefire arrangement includes Lebanon, the Trump administration may restrict Israel’s freedom of action against Hezbollah and demand prior consultation before any military operation.
Responding to these concerns, a senior US official told reporters on Friday:
“I understand the Israeli scepticism. But what we expect is that if we can bring everyone into the peace process, then everyone will do the same.”
On Friday morning, after Iranian state media reported that the agreement would immediately grant Tehran billions of dollars, Israeli officials sought clarification from the White House.
According to Axios, US officials reassured their Israeli counterparts that the Iranian reports had misrepresented the terms of the deal.
A Strategic Test for Netanyahu
The outlet concluded that developments in Lebanon could still undermine the agreement.
Israel continues to occupy areas of southern Lebanon while exchanging attacks with Hezbollah, creating another source of instability that could threaten any broader settlement.
Analysts told Axios that if the war ends without achieving Israel’s declared objectives, the consequences for Netanyahu would be severe.
Such an outcome, they argued, would represent a strategic and political blow powerful enough to break his position at home and reshape the political landscape surrounding his leadership.
