Tehran: For the seventh time since returning to power, US President Donald Trump is set to receive Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington on Tuesday. This time, however, few in Tehran believe the meeting is merely a formal encounter between two allies.
Iranian political circles are closely watching the summit, which could have major consequences for the continuing confrontation between Iran and the US-Israeli axis.
The meeting, the first of its kind since the Ramadan War, comes at a moment of deep uncertainty. A cautious lull has settled over the bombing front, while reports speak of “major military options” being reviewed inside the Pentagon and leaks point to highly theatrical disagreements between Trump and Netanyahu.
For these reasons, Tehran does not view the visit as an ordinary diplomatic event, but as part of the ritual that often precedes a storm.
Previous meetings between Trump and Netanyahu have left deep scars on Iran’s strategic memory. Their last meeting in February was followed only days later by the outbreak of the Ramadan War against Iran.
Now, Washington is preparing to host the two men again, while Iranian political and media circles attempt to read beyond the official photographs and diplomatic smiles.
Diplomatic Cover
Offering a pessimistic reading of the visit, Iranian Justice Minister adviser Majid Sajjadi Panah said high-level meetings between American and Israeli officials have often served as instruments of deception before military strikes.
He pointed to what he described as a historical pattern repeated on at least three occasions, each followed by war:
The diplomatic discussions preceding Operation Opera in 1981, before the bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor.
The high-level discussions between the Trump and Netanyahu teams following the 2015 nuclear agreement, which dismantled what Tehran and Washington had previously achieved.
The Ramadan War, when a statement concerning senior security meetings in Washington preceded the joint attack on Iran. Those meetings were later revealed to have provided “diplomatic cover” for final military coordination.
Speaking to Al Jazeera Net, Sajjadi Panah said the timing of the current meeting raised the same suspicions.
He argued that it could send two contradictory signals. The first is that no major escalation will occur before Trump and Netanyahu meet and establish a future roadmap. The second is that, by the time Netanyahu leaves the Oval Office, targeting systems may already have received their final coordinates.
According to Sajjadi Panah, Netanyahu is seeking to achieve two apparently conflicting objectives through the meeting: securing Israel’s place in any future military scenario and preventing it from being marginalised in any diplomatic process.
He concluded that Tuesday’s summit could determine the direction of the coming weeks and months, either towards further escalation or reduced tensions.
He warned against treating the visit as a routine diplomatic event, given previous occasions when similar meetings were used as cover for military shocks.
Operational Coordination
Political affairs expert Mojtaba Hashemi Neko described the visit as “not a diplomatic meeting, but an operational coordination session”.
He said Netanyahu, following repeated failures in earlier wars against Iran and the resistance axis, was now seeking “an absolute victory that conceals all previous failures”.
According to Hashemi Neko, Netanyahu’s objective is to secure a new green light for a severe and decisive attack on Iran.
Speaking to Al Jazeera Net, he offered a sharper assessment, arguing that the convergence of Netanyahu’s and Trump’s interests lies in their shared view of existential wars.
He said the Israeli prime minister would try to convince Trump that “the only path to a rapid victory is a new, devastating and comprehensive operation extending from Lebanon to Iran and ending the entire matter”.
In his view, Netanyahu is not only seeking to strengthen Israel’s position in any future military or diplomatic arrangement.
He may also be carrying promises to compensate Washington for any financial losses incurred during earlier confrontations with Iran, in exchange for logistical and political guarantees enabling him to settle the matter through what he regards as a “final” strike.
The Iranian researcher said Netanyahu was using Trump as a “strategic shield” to advance a vision based on creating an “unprecedented military and security shock”.
Such a shock, he argued, would redraw the region’s balance of power and weaken Iran to the point of “complete exhaustion”.
This places the visit within a broader sequence of manoeuvres intended to create a new reality on the ground, forcing Tehran either to retreat or confront its adversaries under unequal conditions.
A Changing War Dynamic
In a different interpretation, the analytical news site Eghtesad Azad published commentary arguing that the visit must be understood in the context of a changing war dynamic.
“In the first phase of the war, Israel participated alongside America in attacks on Iran, and Tehran launched hundreds of ballistic missiles towards it,” the commentary stated.
“In the latest round of the conflict, Israel did not enter the battlefield directly, and most of the confrontation took place between Tehran and Washington.”
The unsigned commentary described this situation as “one of Iran’s rare political gains”.
It allowed Tehran to present the American attacks as unilateral action that had already violated the framework agreement signed between the two sides.
That advantage, however, would have disappeared if Iran had attacked Tel Aviv, since such an attack would have justified Israel to enter the war.
The commentary argued that Netanyahu requires “a green light from Washington, support from Israeli public opinion and a minimal degree of international legitimacy” before resuming the war against Iran.
It therefore concluded that Netanyahu’s visit to Washington must be interpreted within this framework.
The Eghtesad Azad analysis also said Netanyahu had faced unprecedented difficulties in arranging his meeting with Trump, suggesting a noticeable decline in his influence within the Oval Office.
According to the commentary, this indicates that relations between Washington and Tel Aviv, despite close military and intelligence cooperation, are not free from disagreement.
These tensions are reflected in an undeclared struggle over which side controls the initiative on Iran.
The Special Relationship
Contrary to accounts describing a growing distance between Washington and Tel Aviv, international relations professor and Iran-Israel conflict researcher Dr Afshin Zargar argued that Netanyahu’s visit was not evidence of a rupture.
Rather, he said, it confirmed the continuation and reinforcement of the “special relationship” between the two sides.
In an interview with the reformist newspaper Etemad, Zargar based his analysis on what he described as Washington’s commitment to supporting Israel.
He cited the strength of the Jewish lobby, shared economic interests and the strategic importance the United States assigns to Israel as a key Middle Eastern ally.
According to Zargar, this commitment extends beyond individual administrations and remains a constant feature of successive American doctrines towards the region.
He added that damage to US bases in Arab countries has pushed Washington to rely more heavily on Israel as its principal regional base, helping explain the continuing centrality of the Israeli entity within American Middle East strategy.
Assessing the visit’s objectives, Zargar said “additional coordination” over Iran’s nuclear capabilities was likely to dominate the agenda, particularly discussions concerning “what the two sides intend to do” about them.
He did not rule out the possibility of deception similar to that which preceded earlier attacks.
At the same time, he stressed that such meetings generally end with additional American military and security support for Israel.
This leaves Tehran facing an intelligence and political challenge as it attempts to understand the messages and intentions concealed behind the visit.
Netanyahu’s trip to Washington remains surrounded by major questions in Tehran.
Iranian political circles broadly agree, however, that it comes at a highly sensitive moment and that its outcomes could shape the next phase.
For Tehran, close attention to the summit is therefore essential, as it may determine whether the Iranian file moves towards renewed military confrontation or returns to the negotiating table.
