A Rift Emerged Between Trump and Netanyahu as the US-Tehran Peace Deal is Within Reach

Dr. Pamelia Riviere 

In recent developments, a significant rift has emerged between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, particularly regarding their strategies in the ongoing conflict with Iran. Initially united in their military operations against Iran, the two leaders now find themselves at odds over their end goals. While Netanyahu remains committed to aggressive military actions, including strikes on Lebanon, Trump seeks a path toward de-escalation. 

During an interview with Al Jazeera's Rob Matheson, experts Joel Rubin and Matthew Kroenig discussed the implications of this divide. Trump's assertive rhetoric has changed the dynamic, as he publicly emphasized his control over Israeli actions, insisting that Netanyahu must comply with his directives. He has explicitly forbidden Israel from continuing its bombings in Lebanon and has urged restraint in military responses to Hezbollah. The tension escalated when Netanyahu ordered an attack on Beirut, prompting Trump to intervene by redirecting Israeli forces. 

Despite Trump's attempts to limit military actions and promote diplomatic solutions aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions, Netanyahu has remained defiant, refusing to back down from what he perceives as Israel's right to defend itself. 

As the situation unfolds, Trump and Netanyahu's previously strong alliance appears strained, revealing the complexities and limitations of their strategic partnership in tackling Iran. While they share a long-standing objective to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, the growing public discord highlights fundamental differences in their approaches to conflict resolution and military engagement.

Trump: “I call all the shots.”

Last week, bitterness between President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu reached a peak, primarily over their differing approaches to the ongoing conflict in the region. Trump yelled at Netanyahu, “You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me.” 

Initially, Trump expressed confidence in Netanyahu's ability to follow his directives, but tensions escalated as their visions for the war's endgame diverged. Reports indicate that Trump confronted Netanyahu in a phone call, expressing frustration over Israeli military actions that jeopardized negotiations with Iran. Despite the rising tensions, Netanyahu downplayed the situation, suggesting that their communications were frequent and complicated. However, Trump reiterated his expectations, insisting that Netanyahu must accept any Iran deal negotiated by the U.S., claiming, "I call all the shots. I call all the shots. He doesn't call the shots.”

 This week, Trump told the Financial Times that Netanyahu won't have any choice. 

However, the situation intensified as Israel targeted Beirut, prompting fears of a broader regional conflict, with Iran responding to the strikes. Trump cautioned Netanyahu against retaliation, but Netanyahu indicated that Israel would continue its military actions regardless. This confrontation underscored the contrasting goals between the two leaders, with Trump emphasizing a need for diplomatic solutions to protect oil markets and his political legacy, while Netanyahu faced domestic pressure to take a hardline stance against Hezbollah. 

Historically, Trump’s first term had strengthened U.S.-Israel relations in Netanyahu's favour. However, as the Biden administration shifts towards diplomacy with Iran, Netanyahu is coming to terms with the conditional nature of U.S. support. Experts suggest that while the public rhetoric may indicate a divide, significant operational coordination between the U.S. and Israeli military continues. Nevertheless, a potential agreement with Iran may test the limits of their alliance, emphasizing that compliance with U.S. directives could be critical for Israel moving forward.

Both leaders are under pressure ahead of the upcoming election

Julian Borger, a senior international correspondent for The Guardian, wrote an article on June 8 discussing how the intricate dynamic between Trump and Netanyahu continues to hinder a ceasefire in the Middle East. In the piece, he notes that the recent spike in hostilities between Iran and Israel seems to have been contained for the moment, following Donald Trump’s assertion that he is the one making all the key decisions in the Middle East. 

However, in a region that remains perilously unstable, Benjamin Netanyahu has once more demonstrated his willingness to take aggressive actions. The missile exchanges that occurred on Sunday and Monday highlighted the inherent volatility of the current state of limbo between war and peace while also illuminating the complicated and often conflicting relationship between the US president and the Israeli prime minister, two leaders who have the potential to influence the ongoing ceasefire. On Sunday, Trump sought to emphasize that he was the primary authority in their relationship, claiming to direct all important decisions.

Trump and Netanyahu allied against Iran on February 28, but tensions arose quickly when promised quick victories failed to materialize. As Iran shut the Strait of Hormuz, rising oil prices became a political threat for Trump, especially with the upcoming elections that could weaken his authority. 

In contrast, Netanyahu faces electoral pressure and needs concrete results against adversaries like Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas to maintain his coalition. This pushes him towards military action, hoping for breakthroughs such as regime change in Tehran. However, he must balance this with maintaining a strong relationship with Washington, Israel's key security ally.

Borger thinks that leaves a fine line to tread.

Trump: US-Iran deal to be signed on Sunday

Al Jazeera reported on June 13, 2026, that U.S. President Donald Trump announced that a deal with Iran would be finalized on Sunday and that the Strait of Hormuz would be “open to all” immediately after its signing. Trump’s remarks seem to contradict statements by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei, who previously said the document would not be signed on Sunday but possibly in the “coming days.” Key mediators and regional countries are optimistic that an agreement will lead to “lasting peace and stability,” with Pakistan stating that the deal is “ready for signatures” and could be completed “very shortly.” Despite advancements in Iran-U.S. diplomacy, Israel has continued its attacks throughout southern Lebanon, resulting in the deaths of at least five individuals. The uncertainty surrounding the deal highlights the ‘chaos’ of U.S. diplomacy under Trump. 

Mohamad Elmasry, a professor at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, told Al Jazeera that the conflict with Iran has shown that the U.S. president is “making things up as he goes along.” “It’s a lot of improvisation, and I believe this is a consequence of a lack of planning on his part or by the administration. Clearly, this ongoing war was a significant miscalculation,” Elmasry stated to Al Jazeera. He noted that many questions remain unresolved as the world waits to see if a U.S.-Iran deal will be finalized soon, particularly regarding the Iranian nuclear issue and the status of the Strait of Hormuz. “We still don’t have a clear understanding of the situation in the Strait of Hormuz. What is the U.S. stance on the Iranians maintaining control over the [waterway] and imposing a fee?” he questioned. “There are still many details to address regarding Iran’s future uranium enrichment and the stockpile of highly enriched uranium. The two parties are at odds over how to approach these issues,” Elmasry further elaborated.

24 billion dollars ' worth of frozen assets and nuclear dust

Tim Constantine, a writer and host, discussed an interview with Al Jazeera regarding a potential deal between the U.S. and Iran. President Trump indicated that the deal could be signed soon, but Iranian officials mentioned unresolved issues. Constantine noted that while the timing of the signing may be in question, the deal itself seems definite based on statements from Pakistan's prime minister. The conversation also touched on the topic of frozen Iranian assets, with reports suggesting billions could be involved, which could be controversial among Trump supporters. Constantine highlighted the long history of U.S.-Iran relations, citing past actions and emphasizing that Trump aims to distinguish this deal from the cash transactions made during the Obama administration.

Tim highlighted the need for initial actions from both sides regarding the Strait of Hormuz, with Iran opening it to the world and the US opening it to Iran. A good-faith effort, such as a small release of US assets, could follow. This wouldn't change the president's goals, as past actions and their justifications are documented. While the reopening of the Strait should happen once a deal is signed, the nuclear issue might get postponed. The administration claims the agreement will dismantle Iran's path to nuclear weapons, which Iran denies wanting in the first place. Skepticism remains about the enforceability of safeguards, especially concerning Iran’s uranium stockpiles and inspections. 

It’s expected Iran will agree in writing not to pursue nuclear weapons. Verification methods by international bodies will be the key question, especially regarding how the US may destroy any nuclear materials. The agreement will likely satisfy the US, with benchmarks for lifting sanctions based on compliance. If a deal is reached soon, Donald Trump would want the public to judge him on his efforts to avoid broader conflict, secure tougher terms, and reopen the Strait. Ultimately, his primary focus is on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and measurable, enforceable results would be seen as a victory. 

As reported by the Guardian, Trump stated on Friday that a draft deal's text published by Iran's Mehr news agency, which cited a source close to Iran's negotiating team, had "no relation to the truth." The draft purportedly aims to resolve conflicts on all fronts, including in Lebanon, where Israel has initiated an offensive against Hezbollah, and to facilitate the release of $24 billion of Iran's frozen assets, according to the semi-official agency. It would also establish a 60-day timeframe for discussions regarding Tehran's nuclear program, propose lifting sanctions on Iran's oil and petrochemical exports, provide significant reparations from the US, and remove the US naval blockade on Iranian ports, which has been enforced since April 13. 

These assertions stood in stark contrast to the statements coming from Washington, where officials indicated that the agreement required the destruction of Iran's nuclear materials and the dismantling of its nuclear program, that none of its frozen funds would be released until certain conditions were fulfilled, and that Iran would cease its support for allied militant groups throughout the Middle East. 

The US-Iran peace deal was disrupted by Israel

The Guardian report highlights Netanyahu's position on the Iran war deal involving Hezbollah and Lebanon. US officials claim regional allies have accepted the deal, but Israel may struggle with limitations on fighting in Lebanon. Netanyahu stated he and Trump are aligned in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and emphasized the importance of curbing Iran's missile production and support for terrorist proxies like Hezbollah. 

Hezbollah's Hassan Fadlallah expressed confidence that Iran would insist on Lebanon's inclusion in any agreement. Following Hezbollah's attack on Israel in March, an Israeli offensive resulted in thousands of casualties in Lebanon.

 Recent Israeli airstrikes have further escalated tensions, leading Tehran to respond with ballistic missile attacks on Israel. Despite ongoing US-mediated ceasefires, the conflict continues, as Hezbollah rejects US-backed plans for withdrawal from southern Lebanon

Julian Borger noted that Netanyahu's biggest victory was persuading Trump to join the attack on Iran, but this triumph is fading. The US-Iranian peace deal is being negotiated without Israeli input and would allow the Iranian regime to maintain a limited nuclear program. This agreement could also limit Israel's actions against Hezbollah. Netanyahu's political survival hinges on the failure of these peace talks, which would likely draw the US back into conflict with Iran. Despite Trump's claims of near peace, he seems reluctant to accept any deal resembling Obama's 2015 nuclear agreement, particularly one involving the controversial transfer of Iranian assets. 

Both Trump and Netanyahu have leveraged their opponents' vulnerabilities, navigating fractured political landscapes and potential legal troubles. This year, they've resorted to military conflict to address their domestic challenges. Until their issues are resolved, the Middle East will continue to suffer.

The writer is a freelance analyst.