Photo: Pexels
According to Israel’s largest-circulation newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, a phone call between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump last weekend turned into a “shouting match from hell”. Its sources said the two leaders argued over when, or whether, to restart strikes on Iran after several weeks of pause.
Netanyahu’s office denied the account and called it “fake news”. The White House has not described the call publicly. The report followed one in the Financial Times saying Netanyahu calls Trump almost every day to urge him to resume military action.
Where each side stands
Washington’s public position is clear. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Tuesday that the US was not preparing to resume strikes and that its economic pressure campaign, combining sanctions and a naval blockade, was doing “much of the important work”. Trump said this week that the US “doesn’t need a deal” with Iran, but has also promised not to launch full-scale strikes. Gulf leaders have lobbied hard against renewed bombing, fearing Iranian retaliation against civilian targets in their countries and a spike in oil prices.
Israel’s position is the opposite. Its government sees the pause as giving Tehran time to rebuild its defences, missile capacity and possibly its nuclear programme, and wants the pressure kept up militarily.
My view: the argument is the news
Whether the call was a shouting match or only a tense conversation, the reported disagreement matches what both governments have said publicly, and it reflects a real divergence.
For most of the past two years, US and Israeli strategy on Iran moved together. Now their interests are separating. Trump has just seen his party lose control of both houses of Congress in the midterms. He faces high fuel prices and a public that has little appetite for an open-ended war. Netanyahu faces Israeli voters who see Iran as an existential threat, and political pressures of his own. Each leader is responding to domestic politics, and those politics now point in different directions.
This matters to the rest of the world for three reasons.
- It is the most important restraint on escalation. If Washington will not resume strikes, Israel’s ability to act alone on a large scale is limited. US reluctance is effectively holding the conflict back.
- It gives Iran an opening. If Tehran sees division between Washington and Jerusalem, it may test it with more drone strikes, such as this week’s claimed attack in Bahrain, hoping to widen the gap.
- It creates room for diplomacy. Middle powers trusted by both sides, including Qatar, Oman, Turkey and Indonesia, have an opportunity to propose a framework while Washington is hesitant about military action.
Allies do disagree, and arguments between leaders are not unusual. What matters is whether the disagreement leads to a negotiated settlement or to one side acting alone. For now, Washington’s restraint is preventing a wider war.
Sources: The Washington Times; Mediaite; Fox News.
