Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently ventured to Washington for an impromptu meeting at the White House, coming armed with a substantial roster of issues requiring urgent attention: Iran’s advancing nuclear ambitions, President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs, Turkey’s increasing sway in Syria, and the ongoing 18-month conflict in Gaza. Despite the urgency of these topics, Netanyahu’s visit seemed to yield scant results, starkly contrasting with his prior triumphant visit just two months earlier. During their hour-long discussion at the Oval Office, Trump appeared to undercut Netanyahu’s policy objectives at every turn.
In public comments on Tuesday, Netanyahu described the meeting as a fruitful one, labeling it a “very good visit” and asserting victories across the board. However, behind closed doors, insiders from the Israeli side reportedly expressed that the encounter had been challenging, according to an individual familiar with the discussions who spoke anonymously due to regulatory requirements. Nadav Eyal, a commentator with the Yediot Ahronot newspaper, observed that Netanyahu left without getting what he hoped for, suggesting the visit was amicable yet marred by disagreements.
Netanyahu’s unexpected journey to the U.S. capital during Trump’s second term aimed primarily at addressing America’s newly adopted tariff policies came at a critical juncture in Middle Eastern geopolitics. With the recent renewal of hostilities in Gaza and escalating tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program, the stakes were high. Netanyahu had previously found great favor with Trump’s return to office thanks to his staunch support during Trump’s first term. This time, however, Trump’s administration has not only installed pro-Israel figures in key offices but has also ceased criticizing Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank, and refrained from opposing Netanyahu’s efforts to diminish the power of Israeli courts.
Despite this ostensibly supportive stance, Monday’s meeting revealed a more complex and unpredictable dynamic between Trump and Netanyahu than anticipated. At the core of their differences were contrasting views on Iran. Netanyahu has been a consistent advocate for military pressure on Iran, a stance which led to the U.S. pulling out of the nuclear agreement orchestrated by the Obama administration—an accord Netanyahu believed was insufficient to check Iran’s nuclear ambitions or its support of militant regional groups.
Trump, on the other hand, seemed more inclined towards diplomacy, hinting at possible military action should Iran refuse to negotiate but also indicating plans for discussions with Iran that weekend—an approach that clashed with Netanyahu’s more hawkish position. Although Netanyahu cautiously endorsed the idea of a diplomatic solution akin to Libya’s nuclear disarmament, it remains uncertain how stringent Trump’s conditions would be, despite outward appearances of transparency between the countries’ leadership during their joint announcement.
Trade was another contentious topic as Netanyahu sought relief from Trump’s newly imposed global tariffs. Prior to the tariffs’ implementation, Israel had preemptively abolished tariffs on U.S. goods, yet Israeli products still faced a 17% tariff from its major trading partner. Although Trump lauded Netanyahu’s leadership, he did not indicate any willingness to exempt Israel from these tariffs, emphasizing the significant military assistance provided annually by the U.S. to Israel and suggesting this support was already generous.
In matters concerning Turkey, recent geopolitical shifts including the fall of the Assad regime in Syria have instigated competing interests between Israel and Turkey in the region. Israel views Turkey’s growing military foothold in Syria as a potential threat, especially with Erdogan’s vocal criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza. Nonetheless, Trump appeared more accommodating towards Turkey, praising Erdogan’s efforts in Syria and advocating for a balanced approach between Israel and Turkey—a stance diverging from Israel’s apprehensions about Turkish expansionism.
Lastly, while the Gaza conflict remains a persistent concern, it seemed overshadowed by other topics during the talks. Despite Netanyahu’s remarks concerning the plight of hostages and aspirations to dismantle Hamas, Trump expressed a desire for the war to conclude, suggesting diplomatic efforts in the near future. Though Netanyahu endorsed keeping up the military pressure until Hamas is subdued, Trump’s remarks reflected an eagerness for resolution and a release of hostages, hinting at a potential divergence in strategy concerning the ongoing conflict.