Trump and Netanyahu: A Real Disagreement or a Passing Summer Cloud?

Dr. Hussein Al-Deek

On Wednesday, May 21, 2025, in a new address to Israel and the international community, Benjamin Netanyahu said that the war would continue until its goals were achieved. It was clear from the tone of this address that Netanyahu still had the green light to continue the war in the Gaza Strip, and that Washington was still pursuing its policy of absolute support for Israel in that war. Talk of real, deep, and fundamental disagreements between Netanyahu and Trump is now a weak hypothesis. The relationship between the two men was previously described as solid and strong, given the ideological convergence between the two parties. Despite the emergence of some differences in viewpoints and changes in complex regional issues, these differences are limited to priorities and do not open a discussion about the future of the strong and stable strategic relationship between the United States and Israel.

The divergence in positions that began between the two sides after the Budapest summit, where Trump summoned Netanyahu directly to the White House and informed him not to launch any military strike against Iran, marked a turning point in the relationship between the two leaders. Netanyahu wanted to use his personal relations to change Washington's policy towards Iran, especially the nuclear agreement. However, Trump, despite his criticism of the agreement, was not prepared to enter into a direct confrontation with Tehran without strategic guarantees. Netanyahu tried to dictate several issues to the US administration, most notably not to enter into a nuclear agreement with Iran, but Washington refused. In addition to the disagreement over the Turkish role in Syria, Netanyahu sought to push Trump to prevent the strengthening of the Turkish presence in northern Syria and not lift sanctions on the Syrian state.

The disagreements deepened when Netanyahu began bypassing Trump and communicating directly with figures within the US administration, such as the National Security Advisor. Netanyahu's coordination with the US National Security Advisor on Iran without consulting Trump angered Trump, who viewed it as a challenge to his direct authority and one of the most prominent signs of personal tension between the two leaders.

Gaza was not far from the arena of contention. At critical moments, Netanyahu made unilateral decisions, such as delaying the entry of humanitarian aid and expanding military operations, without prior coordination with the Trump administration. Netanyahu embarrassed Trump on two issues: the first regarding Gaza and the entry of aid, and the second regarding the expansion of the military operation in Gaza through the Gideon Armored Vehicles operations.

Lifting America's strategic cover from Israel is an unlikely option... because Israel represents Western strategic, imperialist, and colonial interests in the Middle East... Therefore, the current disputes are not between the two countries — the United States and Israel — but rather between the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government. Even with the change of administrations and the shift of interests, the relationship between the United States and Israel remains based on strong institutions and alliances that do not change easily. The relationship between the two countries is a deep strategic relationship that transcends the deep state institutions in both countries, the US Congress, and pressure lobbies within the United States. It is not a relationship between individuals, but rather an institutional and strategic relationship between two countries.

A change in presidents in Washington does not necessarily mean a change in allies or geopolitical priorities. The United States has historically maintained its strategic alliances, including with Israel and the Gulf states. The United States has not changed its strategic allies. Its traditional allies, whether the Gulf states or Israel, remain the same. What has changed is the management of the balance of America's supreme interests and national security interests. In this context, Washington acts in a manner that serves the interests of the American people.

Trump's visit to the Gulf states, without stopping in Tel Aviv, is part of his effort to secure billions in investments to support and revive the American economy. This is why he visited the Gulf and not Israel, especially since Israel is still waging war and has not reached a truce.

This is a strong message from the US administration to Israel, but it does not mean at all that the United States is about to change its alliances in the region. He noted that the message was clearly political, but not a diplomatic rupture.

The Iran and Houthi file in Yemen: Trump and Netanyahu differ radically in their vision of Iran. While Trump believes that reducing tensions is in his country's interest, Netanyahu insists on the military option. Trump seeks to de-escalate crises and reduce hotspots in the region and the world, so that he can devote himself to confronting Chinese expansion and influence. Netanyahu, on the other hand, has a different viewpoint, preferring further escalation and pushing to strike the Iranian nuclear reactor. This contradiction reveals a real clash of priorities, between Trump's focus on Asia and Netanyahu's insistence on Iran. Moreover, the American openness to parties previously classified as enemies of Israel was an indirect slap in the face to Netanyahu, especially after the emergence of signs of understanding with the Houthis and Syria.

The understandings and agreements being brokered between Washington and the Houthis, brokered by Oman, are irritating Netanyahu. He is also disturbed by the US's openness to Syria and its move to lift sanctions, a move Netanyahu strongly rejects. Netanyahu wants the sanctions to remain in place, and he wants to continue the lightning military operations inside Syrian territory, seeking to spread chaos there.

One of the most significant points of contention between the two sides is the way they deal with the Palestinian issue. Netanyahu seeks to impose an expansionist fait accompli, while the US administration believes that the Israeli project conflicts with its global priorities. The relationship with the Palestinians is also a point of contention. Netanyahu seeks complete control over the historical land of Palestine, based on its biblical names, such as “Judea and Samaria” in the West Bank, while the US administration has global strategic priorities that cannot be limited to Netanyahu’s expansionist project.

Despite growing signs of tension between Trump and Netanyahu, the institutional nature of the US-Israeli relationship remains the de facto governing factor for its continuity. It is highly unlikely that the US will lift its cover from Israel. What we are witnessing is a divergence in tactics, not a break in strategies. All these disagreements and differences between Netanyahu and Trump can be summed up as a passing summer cloud.