An Israeli writer has argued that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has fallen into a major political dilemma, as his influence has steadily eroded under the way United States President Donald Trump has chosen to deal with him. According to the writer, Trump has openly presented Israel as a subordinate partner, while Netanyahu has failed to translate military achievements into broader regional strategic gains.
Israeli journalist Dan Perry, a former editor-in-chief of the Associated Press for Europe, Africa and the Middle East, wrote that Israelis will not remember the war with Iran because of its dramatic operations, assassinations or the initial euphoria surrounding it.
Instead, he argued, it may be remembered as the moment one of Netanyahu’s most important political assets finally collapsed: the belief that he was the leader who knew how to preserve Israel’s standing in Washington and maintain its dignity in its relationship with the United States.
A Subordinate Leader Publicly Humiliated
In an article published by the Hebrew newspaper Maariv under the headline “An Absolute Scandal: Trump May Have Declared Netanyahu’s End This Week”, Perry wrote that even Israelis who disliked Netanyahu and distrusted his policies often accepted one argument.
They believed he understood America better than any other Israeli politician, knew how to navigate the American establishment, manage relations with presidents, and keep Israel close to the world’s most powerful centre of influence. This relationship, Perry noted, was not only about military strength but also about prestige and being viewed as a sovereign and important ally.
For that reason, he said, the developments of recent months have been deeply shocking.
Perry argued that Trump now speaks publicly about Netanyahu as if he were the leader of a dependent state. Unlike previous American presidents, who exerted pressure behind closed doors, Trump openly boasts that he decides what Israel can and cannot do.
He speaks, Perry wrote, as if Israeli military operations in Lebanon require his personal approval.
According to the article, Trump has privately insulted Netanyahu and described him as a “difficult person”. He has also strongly implied that Netanyahu drags the United States into conflicts that do not necessarily serve American interests.
During the recent G7 summit, Trump stated that Israel was killing and destroying more than necessary in Lebanon and suggested that Syria should handle the issue of Hezbollah instead.
Perry described this as a complete humiliation.
“The entire world can see it,” he wrote, adding that in international relations, perception is almost as important as military power itself.
Israel, he noted, has always depended strategically on the United States. It relies on American weapons systems, ammunition, diplomatic protection, intelligence cooperation and the wider deterrence provided by its alliance with Washington.
Yet for decades, at least one principle remained intact.
American presidents avoided publicly portraying Israel as a dependent state acting under their personal instructions. Even when tensions rose and disputes became severe, the appearance of a relationship between two sovereign states was preserved.
The irony, Perry argued, is that Trump, whom Netanyahu and the Israeli right promoted for years as proof of Netanyahu’s diplomatic brilliance, is the one who has shattered this principle completely.
Tel Aviv Swallows the Humiliation in Silence
Perry noted that the irony becomes even sharper when compared to the Israeli right’s furious reaction to the far more restrained behaviour of former President Joe Biden during the war on Gaza.
When Biden temporarily suspended certain arms shipments over the Rafah issue and demanded a reasonable plan for the post-war period, many in Israel described it as a national humiliation and proof that Democrats were “anti-Israel”.
Yet, Perry wrote, the weapons ultimately arrived, Israel entered Rafah and the war continued.
More importantly, Biden never spoke of Israel as a state that needed his permission to act.
Trump, by contrast, does exactly that.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s political camp has remained almost completely silent.
Perry argued that the problem is not merely the humiliation itself, but the fact that it followed a war whose strategic results appear increasingly close to failure.
Once again, he wrote, the vast difference between tactical success and strategic success has become clear.
When Iran pushed the region into a state of extreme tension and governments across the Middle East became alarmed, Western capitals quickly pressured Washington to stop the escalation.
At that moment, one of the central weaknesses of the American and Israeli strategy became apparent.
The military opening phase had been carefully planned, but there was almost no strategy for what would come afterwards.
There was no organised plan for regime change, no serious preparation for an economic war centred on the Strait of Hormuz, and little willingness in the West to absorb the economic costs of a prolonged conflict.
As has happened repeatedly, Perry wrote, the West lost patience before the Iranian government did.
Trump’s Policies and a Fragmented Western Alliance
Perry further argued that Trump entered the confrontation with Iran after already causing significant damage to the Western alliance system that had underpinned American global power for decades.
For more than a year, he wrote, Trump had insulted NATO allies and treated long-standing strategic partners as political tools designed to serve his populist base.
The absurdity of this approach reached its peak in January when Trump publicly threatened to invade Greenland, a territory belonging to Denmark, one of America’s NATO allies.
What would once have been dismissed as political fantasy suddenly became legitimate rhetoric for an American president.
According to Perry, Trump’s behaviour severely weakened the West’s ability to apply effective international pressure on Iran.
He argued that it is not an exaggeration to say that large sections of Europe’s political elite dislike Trump more than they fear the Iranian government.
European governments, he wrote, did not want either a regional war or a nuclear Iran.
However, they were equally reluctant to rescue an American president whom many considered partly responsible for the escalation because of years of unilateralism, intimidation and contempt towards allies.
Lost Opportunities and Growing Isolation
Perry concluded that the final outcome of the war is far removed from the promises made at its outset.
The Iranian government remains in power.
Its nuclear programme has not been eliminated.
Its ballistic missile capabilities remain intact.
Hezbollah has not been dismantled.
The Houthis continue to threaten maritime routes.
Hamas still exists.
Meanwhile, Iran is expected to receive substantial sanctions relief that could restore financial flows to the government.
Israel, Perry argued, has emerged from the conflict with significantly less international legitimacy, deeper political dependence on Washington, and the image of a state struggling to transform military achievements into a stable political settlement.
He expressed deep frustration over what he described as a series of missed opportunities.
There was a time, he wrote, when he did not see Israel as a country drifting into an endless war without a clear political objective, driven largely by revenge and engaged in unlawful collective punishment that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza.
At that stage, Perry noted, the Biden administration attempted to advance a sweeping regional agreement that represented the greatest strategic opportunity Israel had been offered in decades.
The proposal included a prisoner exchange deal, a gradual end to the war, historic normalisation with Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, and coordinated international and Arab pressure aimed at ending Hamas rule and replacing it with the Palestinian Authority.
According to Perry, this could have become a historic turning point.
Instead of emerging from 7 October isolated, exhausted and increasingly disliked around the world, Israel could have emerged with a regional alliance against Iran, relations with Saudi Arabia, stronger standing in the West and at least some hope for a more stable regional future.
But Netanyahu chose another path.
He chose to prolong the war without a clear political strategy.
As the conflict continued, Perry argued, Israel’s international legitimacy eroded sharply.
Support among American Democrats collapsed.
Young people across the West increasingly distanced themselves from Israel.
Europe, Israel’s largest trading partner, became more hostile.
Rather than achieving a major regional project that could isolate Iran, Israel ended up exhausted and politically dependent on Trump, while facing an Iranian government that remains intact and stronger.
For years, Perry wrote, Israelis told themselves that the world respects power above all else.
“There is some truth in that,” he said.
“But the world also respects wisdom, responsibility, strategy and the ability to offer some hope for the future.”
“Bullying and stupidity, however, do not earn respect.”
He concluded his article with a harsh assessment:
“This is what Netanyahu’s Israel looks like. A foolish bully speaking polished English.”
“Perhaps the decisive moment has not arrived yet, but it is difficult to see how Netanyahu can still convince enough Israelis that he is the man who brings them security, prestige or dignity.”
The remarks come as Netanyahu continues to face four corruption cases that could ultimately result in prison sentences if he is convicted.
