Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emerged from his meeting with US President Donald Trump in Washington praising what he described as the partnership and understanding between them. However, the absence of a joint statement or press conference left questions over what he had achieved and whether he had succeeded in influencing the US administration’s calculations towards Iran.
Before travelling to Washington, Netanyahu said Iran would be at the top of his agenda. It was his first face-to-face meeting with Trump since the war on Iran began, and their eighth meeting since the US president returned to the White House.
The visit also came ahead of Israeli elections scheduled for October, as Netanyahu faces domestic pressure and declining poll numbers.
Tuesday’s meeting lasted around 90 minutes behind closed doors. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described it as “positive and constructive”, while Trump said only that it had been a “very good meeting” in which important issues were discussed, without providing details.
Netanyahu described the meeting as “excellent”, saying it reflected partnership, mutual support and agreement on the shared objective of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
The Associated Press cited an Israeli official familiar with the meeting as saying that Netanyahu told Trump Israel would respond if attacked by Iran, but would leave it to the US president to determine any subsequent steps.
Contradictory Signals
Trump and Netanyahu did not appear together before the media as they had during previous meetings, nor did they hold a joint press conference. The Israeli prime minister also used a side entrance to reach the White House’s West Wing.
Signs of disagreement had already emerged before the meeting, when Trump criticised Netanyahu’s announcement that he intended to present information concerning Iranian activity at the Jabal al-Fas site, known in Persian as Mount Kolang, which Israel suspects is linked to Iran’s nuclear programme.
Trump said he already knew what was happening at the site and suggested Netanyahu was raising the issue because he wanted to keep the United States involved in the war. He also questioned why the information had been announced publicly rather than conveyed to him directly.
Netanyahu’s remarks after the meeting, however, showed that the two remained aligned on preventing Iran from rebuilding its nuclear capabilities.
This led Iranian observers to focus on the nature of the disagreement between them, and whether it concerned the final objective or merely the timing, limits and relationship of military action to the diplomatic track.
Qualified Support
Iranian journalist Mashallah Shamsolvaezin said the main objective of Netanyahu’s visit was personal and electoral, aimed at strengthening his position and that of the Likud Party ahead of the elections.
He said Netanyahu sought to portray the visit as having broader significance than its immediate objectives and to present his relationship with Trump as unchanged from the past.
Speaking to Al Jazeera Net, Shamsolvaezin said sources following the visit in the United States had noted several protocol-related signals, including Netanyahu’s use of a side entrance, the limited number of published images and videos, and the absence of a joint press conference after the meeting.
He argued that these indicators suggested Trump was unwilling to display the same level of support and reception previously extended to Netanyahu.
At the same time, Trump did not want to cut him off or isolate him completely, given the strength of Israel’s position, and Netanyahu’s standing, within the Republican Party.
According to Shamsolvaezin, the US president attempted to balance creating political distance from Netanyahu with preserving Israel as a strategic ally.
He also said the Israeli prime minister had failed to produce a major shift in Washington’s calculations during the visit, although he had achieved some of his domestic political objectives.
Shamsolvaezin largely ruled out a repeat of a direct joint war against Iran, but said this did not mean Israel would be excluded from participating alongside the United States if another comprehensive confrontation erupted.
He said Washington had kept Netanyahu “in reserve” for two purposes: to draw on Israel if a decision were made to expand attacks on Iran, and to use the Israeli threat as a means of strengthening US leverage in any future negotiations with Tehran.
Disagreement Over Timing and Method
Professor of International Relations Mohsen Farkhani said Israeli moves towards Iran are rooted in security and military doctrines aimed at preventing the emergence of a superior strategic threat in the region.
He referred to the Begin Doctrine, associated with preventing states Israel considers hostile from acquiring a military nuclear capability, as well as Israel’s Eisenkot Doctrine, which is based on deterrence, early warning, decisive action and defence, alongside the use of offensive operations against distant threats.
From this perspective, Farkhani said Netanyahu sought in Washington to steer the United States away from any diplomatic agreement that would allow Iran to rebuild its nuclear programme or develop its missile capabilities.
At the same time, he wanted to keep the military option open for new attacks on remaining or reconstructed facilities.
Farkhani told Al Jazeera Net that Israel’s current objective is not necessarily the immediate overthrow of the Iranian government, but rather preventing Tehran from rebuilding what Israel considers an existential threat.
This would mean stopping Iran from once again approaching the nuclear threshold or expanding its missile capabilities.
He described the disagreement between Trump and Netanyahu as primarily tactical, saying it was not about the final objective but about the timing and intensity of pressure on Iran, as well as the tools used to apply it.
Trump, because of domestic political and economic calculations, prefers a diplomatic course supported by a controlled military threat, Farkhani said.
Netanyahu, by contrast, believes diplomacy without continuous military pressure would give Tehran the time it needs to rebuild its capabilities.
The international relations professor placed Netanyahu’s demands within what he described as an ongoing Israeli strategy to strip Iran of its strategic capabilities and structurally weaken its deterrence system.
He said Trump wants to manage the cost of confrontation, while Netanyahu seeks to extract the maximum possible benefit from US pressure.
In his assessment, Netanyahu focused his efforts on changing Trump’s calculations and pushing him towards military action to prevent Iran from rebuilding its nuclear and missile capabilities.
So far, however, that effort has not achieved the desired result.
An Immediate Test of the Meeting
Netanyahu’s visit gained further significance following military developments that occurred shortly afterwards.
Hours after the meeting, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced that it had launched ballistic missiles at what it described as US military facilities in Jordan. US Central Command said its defences had intercepted the missiles.
Trump subsequently threatened to strike Iran “with force”, while US and Saudi attacks targeted sites belonging to Iraqi factions linked to Tehran.
These developments do not prove that Trump’s threat resulted from an understanding reached with Netanyahu, as it came in response to a direct battlefield development.
They did, however, revive the question of whether the Israeli prime minister had succeeded in keeping the military option active within US decision-making circles.
