Trump and Netanyahu Meet as Their Alliance Comes Under Strain

4 days ago
5 min read

President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are meeting for the first time since they launched a joint war against Iran, at a moment when their once-close alliance is showing signs of strain. Both leaders are facing mounting political pressure at home, while disagreements over how to move forward with the conflict have increasingly become public.

When the war began in February, Trump and Netanyahu presented a united front. Their governments sought to take out Iran's leadership and weaken its military capabilities. But Iran fought back, launching drones and missiles at US bases and cities across the Gulf while disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

The conflict has since become increasingly costly for Washington. Rising energy prices and economic disruption have intensified pressure on Trump to back away from a prolonged war, particularly as the November midterm elections approach. Netanyahu, by contrast, has advocated continuing military operations against Iran and its ally Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The disagreement has left Netanyahu somewhat sidelined as Trump has attempted to negotiate with Tehran. Israeli political analysts argue that Washington has made it increasingly clear that the United States, rather than Israel, is calling the shots.

Netanyahu nevertheless hopes to persuade Trump that Iran's nuclear program remains an overriding threat. He plans to share intelligence about Tehran's nuclear capabilities and has indicated that he would accept a diplomatic solution if it could permanently prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

The two leaders will also discuss the wars in Gaza and Lebanon. Netanyahu must convince Trump that Israel will not get in the way of American diplomatic and reconstruction efforts. Israel has recently agreed to allow Lebanese forces to deploy in areas where Hezbollah previously operated and has approved.

However, these measures remain limited, and Israeli military operations in Gaza continue. The war has also caused Israel to lose ground diplomatically, with bipartisan American support reportedly weakening because of the civilian toll.

Ultimately, the meeting could determine whether Trump and Netanyahu can patch up their differences or whether their strategic disagreement becomes a lasting rupture. If Trump decides that diplomacy offers the best route forward, Netanyahu may have to scale back his ambitions for continued military action. If, however, the two leaders fail to reach an understanding, their increasingly divergent approaches could further complicate efforts to end the wider conflict.

War-related phrasal verbs

Phrasal verb	Meaning	Example
move forward with	Continue with a plan or course of action	The government decided to move forward with peace negotiations.
take out	Destroy or eliminate a military target or enemy	The operation was designed to take out key military commanders.
bring about	Cause something to happen	The offensive failed to bring about a change in government.
fight back	Resist or retaliate against an attack	The army fought back after coming under heavy fire.
back away from	Retreat from or abandon a position or course of action	The president refused to back away from his demand for a ceasefire.
call the shots	Be the person or side making the important decisions	The military leadership, rather than the politicians, appeared to be calling the shots.
strike back at	Attack in retaliation	The country threatened to strike back at its enemy.
get in the way of	Prevent something from happening or progressing	Further fighting could get in the way of peace negotiations.
lose ground	Become less successful, influential, or powerful	The government began to lose ground as public support declined.
scale back	Reduce the size, intensity, or extent of something	Both sides agreed to scale back their military operations.
lose ground	Become less successful, influential, or powerful	The government began to lose ground as public support declined.
scale back	Reduce the size, intensity, or extent of something	Both sides agreed to scale back their military operations.

Glossary

strain

Definition: Pressure or tension that makes a relationship or situation more difficult.Example: Years of conflict have placed considerable strain on the alliance.

united front

Definition: A situation in which people or groups publicly present a common position.Example: The two governments initially presented a united front against their adversary.

mounting

Definition: Gradually increasing in intensity, amount, or seriousness.Example: The president faces mounting pressure to end the war.

overriding

Definition: More important or influential than other considerations.Example: National security remained the government's overriding concern.

divergent

Definition: Becoming increasingly different in opinions, objectives, or approaches.Example: The allies have developed increasingly divergent views about how to end the conflict.

diplomatic

Definition: Related to negotiations between governments; also tactful in handling sensitive situations.Example: The president has shifted his attention from military action to diplomatic negotiations.

rupture

Definition: A serious breakdown in a relationship or agreement.Example: A disagreement over military strategy could lead to a rupture between the allies.

stabilization

Definition: The process of making a situation more stable and less likely to deteriorate.Example: An international force was proposed to assist with the stabilization of the region.

bipartisan

Definition: Supported by or involving two major political parties.Example: The policy once enjoyed bipartisan support.

civilian toll

Definition: The number of civilians killed, injured, displaced, or otherwise harmed by a conflict.Example: International criticism increased because of the growing civilian toll.

Discussion Questions — Conditionals

If you were advising Trump, what would you recommend he prioritize in the meeting with Netanyahu? Why?
If Netanyahu agreed to scale back military operations, how might this affect negotiations with Iran?
If the United States withdrew its military support from Israel, how might the balance of power in the region change?
If diplomatic negotiations had succeeded before the war began, how might the current situation be different?
If the conflict continues for another year, what consequences might Israel, Iran, and the United States face?
If you were a leader of a neighbouring country, what would you do if the conflict began threatening your country's security or economy?
If both leaders genuinely wanted to end the conflict, what compromises might each side have to make?
If public support for Israel continues to decline in the United States, how might American foreign policy change?

Critical Thinking — Advanced Conditionals

If you were Trump, would you prioritize preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons or ending the war as quickly as possible? What might be the consequences of choosing one over the other?
If Netanyahu had pursued diplomacy instead of continuing military operations, would the conflict in Gaza and Iran be in a different position today? Explain your reasoning.
If military action weakens an enemy but causes significant civilian casualties, can it still be considered strategically successful? Under what circumstances?
If an ally's actions begin damaging your country's international reputation, should you continue supporting that ally? What factors should determine your decision?
If Trump and Netanyahu cannot resolve their disagreements, what could happen to the broader US-Israel relationship?
If Iran agreed to abandon its nuclear programme in exchange for an end to military strikes and sanctions, what risks and benefits might each side face?
If the United States were to reduce its involvement in the Middle East, which countries or organizations might gain influence, and what consequences could follow?
If you were designing a long-term peace agreement for the region, what conditions would you consider essential for preventing another war?
If the civilian toll continued to rise while military objectives remained unmet, at what point should a government reconsider its strategy?
If the current conflict eventually ended without either side achieving all of its objectives, would that necessarily mean that the war had been unsuccessful? Why or why not?