“My hair is on fire.” This was reportedly how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted after a phone call with US President Donald Trump, following Trump’s announcement on Truth Social that he would refrain from launching additional strikes against Iran. Few phrases better capture the current state of relations between the two men — as though the magician has fallen victim to his own spell. While Israel continues to push for renewed military action, Washington remains willing to grant diplomacy another chance, exposing a widening rift over how to proceed with a war that Netanyahu views as an opportunity for political survival, whereas Trump increasingly sees it as a costly entanglement from which he must extricate himself with minimal damage. This disagreement is no mere difference in perspective. It reflects a growing sense within the White House that it was misled, while Tel Aviv fears being sidelined in shaping the region’s future security architecture. Trump once regarded Netanyahu as one of his closest allies in the Middle East. His current frustration stems largely from earlier Israeli assessments suggesting that the war — which began with large-scale strikes in February 2026 — would rapidly dismantle Iran’s strategic capabilities or force Tehran into immediate capitulation. Yet the battlefield reality proved otherwise. The confrontation evolved into an open-ended war that threatened global economic stability and drove fuel prices upward, creating a domestic political burden for the Trump administration ahead of the congressional midterm elections. The crisis has not merely backfired militarily; it has also damaged America’s international standing. Washington now appears isolated after falling into what many perceive as a strategic trap: Western allies are reluctant to offer meaningful assistance, while Asian partners see little incentive to rescue a president whose tariffs and economic policies have strained their own economies. On the eve of the attack on Iran, Netanyahu was not merely present in the operations room alongside President Trump — he reportedly dominated the discussion, convinced that a joint American-Israeli assault would bring about the collapse of the Islamic Republic. However, as The New York Times later reported, only weeks after those optimistic promises evaporated, the entire situation changed dramatically. Washington gradually distanced Israel to such an extent that Israeli leaders were effectively excluded from key information regarding ceasefire negotiations between the United States and Iran. Prof. Hatem Sadek This marginalization — from the highest levels downward — carries profound political implications for Netanyahu, who faces a difficult election campaign this year and has long portrayed himself to voters as a leader capable of influencing Trump and shaping decisions alongside him. Recent diplomatic reports, including accounts published by Axios, revealed that extremely tense phone calls took place between the two leaders, with Netanyahu expressing deep anger over the proposed settlement terms. Trump’s public response reflected a determination to impose American priorities, declaring that Netanyahu would “do what I want in the end,” while making clear his unwillingness to prolong a war that no longer serves direct American interests. Israeli officials are deeply concerned by their incomplete involvement in several indirect negotiation tracks between Washington and Tehran. Many observers interpret this American diplomatic posture as a form of “political punishment” or an attempt to limit Netanyahu’s ability to sabotage the talks — particularly given Tel Aviv’s persistent efforts to resume military operations under the argument that any retreat now would allow Iran to rebuild its military networks and circumvent sanctions. But where could this growing dispute ultimately lead? The most likely scenario is that Trump will continue pursuing a diplomatic settlement, driven by his desire to end open-ended wars. To avoid a full rupture with Tel Aviv, Washington may offer Israel an enhanced package of security guarantees — such as deploying advanced air defense systems or signing long-term bilateral security agreements — to compel Netanyahu to accept the new reality, especially given Israel’s heavy dependence on American logistical and military support. A second possibility involves Israeli attempts to circumvent diplomacy through limited military escalation. Should Netanyahu conclude that the emerging agreement poses an existential threat to Israel’s security — or to his own political future — Tel Aviv may resort to intelligence operations or targeted strikes inside Iran or against its regional allies to sabotage the negotiating climate and provoke an Iranian response, thereby dragging Washington back into military escalation. There is also a broader dimension to this disagreement. It may accelerate the transition from the vision of a “New Middle East” based on absolute military supremacy toward a model centered on “conflict management and containment.” Washington increasingly seeks a balance that safeguards global energy flows and international trade through regional arrangements involving actors such as Pakistan and the Gulf states. Israel, by contrast, maintains that stability can only be achieved through the total elimination of Iranian influence — an objective that Washington, after the realities of the battlefield, now considers militarily unrealistic and politically unsustainable. The core problem is that when Trump entered the war, he never expected to negotiate with the Iranians. He believed that American power alone would dictate the outcome swiftly and decisively. Yet the negotiations that now represent an opportunity for him to claim a “diplomatic victory” and end the conflict are, in reality, widely perceived as a strategic victory for Tehran’s regime. Meanwhile, Netanyahu views the current draft agreement with profound anxiety, considering it merely a prelude to an inevitable future war. The truth is that every step Washington takes toward negotiations with Tehran does more than redraw regional balances of power; it also strikes a sensitive chord in US-Israeli relations and begins redefining the limits of an alliance that had grown significantly stronger since Trump’s return to the White House. Prof. Hatem Sadek, Helwan University The post Opinion | Trump and Netanyahu: An Alliance Eroding Amid the Fires of War first appeared on Dailynewsegypt.
