In an interview on Sunday, US President Donald Trump declared that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would have “no choice” but to accept an agreement with Iran, adding that “the decision belongs to me, not him.”
The statement appeared to draw clear boundaries around one of Washington’s most sensitive alliances. Yet the events that followed quickly undermined its certainty.
Within days, Trump found himself urging Netanyahu during a phone call to halt further strikes against Iran, before publicly calling on both Israel and Iran to implement an immediate ceasefire.
As recent developments suggest, a significant part of the current dispute revolves around a deeper question: how much influence does Washington actually have over its Israeli ally when Netanyahu’s military and political calculations begin to conflict with America’s diplomatic objectives?
The Illusion of Control
According to The New York Times, Trump expressed clear frustration over Israel’s latest attacks on Iran, highlighting an expanding divide between Washington and Tel Aviv over conflicts that the American administration is attempting either to end or contain.
The newspaper reported that Trump personally pressured Netanyahu to cancel additional military operations following the first exchange of attacks between Iran and Israel since the April ceasefire.
Yet the conversation did little to dispel growing doubts about the extent of American influence over Israeli decision-making.
The report notes that Netanyahu was among the strongest advocates for military action against Iran and was reportedly present in the White House Situation Room shortly before the campaign began.
However, once the United States became directly involved in the conflict, Trump’s priorities began to shift. The American president increasingly favoured ending the war and returning to negotiations, while Netanyahu continued to view multiple active fronts as strategic assets that should not be relinquished prematurely.
The New York Times cited Hasan Alhasan, a Middle East specialist at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, who argued that Israel successfully steered Trump’s Iran policy in the direction it preferred until it became clear that the promised outcomes were unlikely to materialise.
According to Alhasan, even an “angry phone call” from Trump is unlikely to fundamentally alter Netanyahu’s behaviour.
The newspaper also quoted analysts who noted that successive American administrations have rarely imposed significant costs on Israel when Israeli actions complicated broader diplomatic initiatives. As a result, unilateral military action has remained a viable option for Tel Aviv, even when it weakens the White House’s position or creates diplomatic embarrassment.
Lebanon: The Gateway to Escalation
The latest round of confrontation began in Lebanon.
An Israeli strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs paved the way for a direct Iranian response against Israel, which was then followed by Israeli attacks inside Iran.
According to The Washington Post, Trump was attempting to keep negotiations with Iran alive, while the conflict in Lebanon threatened to derail those efforts entirely.
The newspaper reported that Tehran had insisted any comprehensive settlement with Washington must include an end to hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel, however, wanted to preserve its ability to strike Hezbollah regardless of developments in negotiations with Iran.
The Washington Post noted that public sentiment inside Israel, particularly in northern regions, is not pushing towards de-escalation.
Across border communities, political programmes, government supporters and opposition figures alike, calls for continuing military operations in Lebanon have become increasingly common.
A survey conducted by the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv found that approximately 60 per cent of Israelis support intensifying military action against Hezbollah, with support rising even further among government supporters.
This domestic pressure provides Netanyahu with room to resist American demands.
With parliamentary elections expected in September, withdrawing from Lebanon could be portrayed domestically as a defeat. Continuing military operations, by contrast, allows Netanyahu to present himself as a leader restoring security to Israel’s north.
The Long Shadow of Past Wars
The Washington Post also draws comparisons with Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the subsequent eighteen-year occupation.
The comparison serves as a warning about how military operations launched under limited security objectives can gradually evolve into long-term military entanglements with no clear exit strategy.
According to the report, Israeli officials and analysts have discussed the possibility that troops could remain in Lebanon for months or even years, particularly if Netanyahu’s government links withdrawal to reducing Hezbollah’s capabilities to a level that currently appears unattainable.
Some observers see echoes of past conflicts in the current situation: symbolic military positions, ground incursions and security pressure emanating from the northern front.
The key difference, however, is that today’s political climate is significantly more hardline, while calls for withdrawal are far weaker than those that preceded Israel’s departure from Lebanon in 2000.
Iran’s New Calculations
The Wall Street Journal interprets Iran’s response as evidence that Tehran has become more willing to accept strategic risks.
Following the Israeli strike on Beirut, Iran did not limit itself to condemnation or indirect action through allied groups. Instead, it launched missiles directly at Israel, sending a message that attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon would no longer remain isolated from consequences on other fronts.
According to the newspaper, Tehran is betting on Trump’s desire to preserve negotiations.
Every carefully calibrated escalation increases the likelihood that the American president will pressure Netanyahu to reduce military operations rather than risk the collapse of diplomatic talks with Iran.
Despite extensive Israeli and American strikes, Iran still possesses thousands of ballistic missiles and appears determined to demonstrate that attacks against it now carry tangible costs, according to analysts cited by the publication.
From this perspective, the war has not made Iran more cautious. Instead, it has encouraged a strategy of controlled escalation built on the assumption that Washington has little appetite for another open-ended regional war.
The Alliance Trap
Newsweek frames the crisis within a broader concept it describes as the “alliance trap”: a situation in which Washington finds itself responsible for defending an ally whose decisions it cannot fully control.
Trump wants to secure an agreement with Iran and prevent diplomatic collapse. At the same time, he cannot afford to appear as though he is abandoning Israel or restricting its right to respond to attacks by Hezbollah or Iran.
This is the core dilemma facing the United States.
Israel presents its own security narrative: Hezbollah rockets, direct Iranian attacks, instability along the northern border and a public demanding decisive action.
Washington views the situation differently.
Every strike risks opening a new front. Every new front threatens ongoing negotiations. Every escalation increases the potential costs for American military bases, Gulf allies and global markets.
Newsweek notes that while Washington may deny direct coordination with Israel, it cannot always escape political responsibility.
From Tehran’s perspective, Israel operates under the protection of the American strategic umbrella. Consequently, the United States bears part of the responsibility for escalation, even when American officials insist they did not authorise Israeli actions.
A Relationship Under Pressure
The latest confrontation has exposed a growing tension at the heart of the US-Israeli partnership.
Trump seeks de-escalation to preserve diplomatic negotiations and minimise political costs at home. Netanyahu, meanwhile, faces strong domestic incentives to maintain military pressure across multiple fronts.
Whether Washington can successfully restrain Israeli actions, or whether Israel can continue shaping American policy despite increasing differences, may become one of the defining questions of the next phase of the regional conflict.
The answer will determine not only the future of US-Iran negotiations but also the limits of American influence over one of its closest allies.
