When Donald Trump talks, the world listens – and then scratches its head, asking: But what does he really mean?
The constant refrain is that the US president should be taken seriously, but not necessarily literally.
That gap between meaning, rhetoric and truth has never mattered more than when it comes to Trump’s dealings with Israel and in particular Benjamin Netanyahu.
Go back a few months, and critics of the operation against Iran claimed that the prime minister had somehow convinced the president into a war against America’s best interests with Machiavellian ingenuity and guile.
Fast-forward to now, and many of those same critics have jumped upon recent reports of Trump directing expletive-ridden fury at Netanyahu to conjure an unlikely picture of the Likud leader as a recalcitrant poodle of the president being brought to heel.
In the past few days, the US-Israel relationship has turned on this hinge question: will Trump allow Iran to link the protection and survival of Hezbollah to a permanent ceasefire deal?
The crunch point came with the Islamic Republic’s launch of missiles against targets in Israel on Sunday night, with Tehran claiming it was a justified response to an IDF strike on a Hezbollah stronghold in Beirut in the continuing campaign in Lebanon.
Quickly, Trump put out a statement telling Israel not to respond, maintaining his tunnel vision pursuit of a ceasefire deal. The request was seemingly ignored, as targets in Iran were hit in the hours that followed.
Then, almost as abruptly as this late coda to the war had erupted, it appeared to have ended, with the fragile truce seemingly restored after exchanges that had lasted less than 24 hours.
Iran had launched roughly 30 missiles in that time. There were no casualties, but it once again proved Tehran’s determination to maintain pressure on Israel over Hezbollah while testing the limits of any diplomatic framework currently under discussion. Time and time again, Iran has shown its ability to run rings around the negotiators.
Meanwhile, Trump had suggested that Netanyahu “doesn’t call the shots”.
So the central question remains: who is really setting the terms of this confrontation – Jerusalem, Washington or Tehran?
In Israel, the view of the conflict is clear: Iran cannot be allowed to tie Lebanon into the negotiations for a wider regional settlement.
An Israeli government official told the JC: “There are no circumstances in which Israel will allow the regime in Tehran to create a new equation, so that an attack on Hezbollah terror targets in the Dahiyeh district of Beirut is answered with an Iranian attack on population centres in Israel.
“That is why Israel will operate throughout Lebanon, as needed, to remove the Hezbollah terror threat to our civilians.”
As for Hezbollah, itself, Israeli officials insist the terror militia cannot be allowed to regain the military and political capabilities it once had.
Some observers are pessimistic about the chances of success in enabling the government of Lebanon to regain control from the Shia proxy army of the Islamic Republic.
A former United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) official told the JC: “The most militarised army has always been Hezbollah, but there was an attempt from the international community that somehow never worked out, because there was never the financial strength of the financial assistance that could have been given to the Lebanese army to take over the south of Lebanon.
"I don’t think that these negotiations can have positive repercussions. I’ve seen the plan, I’ve seen the demands, and they’re too divergent in terms of demands from both sides. I don’t see a very bright future.”
Israel argues that Hezbollah’s future cannot be negotiated separately from the security threats it poses.
The same dynamic extends to Tehran’s wider network of regional proxies. The Houthis, largely absent from recent developments, re-entered the picture by launching two ballistic missiles toward Israel on Monday morning.
Both were intercepted. Militarily, the strikes achieved little but they served as a reminder of Iran’s ability to project pressure across multiple fronts.
The question of Israeli retaliation has exposed the delicate balance between Washington and Jerusalem. “Israel worked hard, or tried to work on separating Iran from Lebanon and now this is all connected,” one source familiar with the discussions said.
Trump has publicly signalled his preference for restraint, reportedly warning Netanyahu that further escalation could jeopardise ongoing diplomatic efforts with Tehran.
Behind closed doors, the JC has learnt, Israel informed the White House of its intention to respond following Iran’s missile attack in a phone call on Sunday night before the attack. “Israel couldn’t simply accept that equation,” said the source.
Israel targeted weapons and conducted a strike on a petrochemical complex in south-west Iran in which materials are produced and used for the ballistic missiles that are fired toward Israel and the whole Middle East.
The assessment among those familiar with the exchanges – though not officially confirmed – is that Washington ultimately accepted a limited and carefully calibrated Israeli response: enough to preserve deterrence without completely derailing diplomatic efforts.
Even so, officials acknowledge Israel was caught off guard by Iran’s decision to strike.
“The assessment was that there was a low probability Iran would attack Israel directly that night,” one source familiar with the situation said.
“When it happened, there was genuine surprise.”
It looks very much like Iran outmanoeuvred Trump once again.
Initial expectations in Jerusalem were that the confrontation would last only a matter of days. Events have proved more complicated.
By Monday afternoon, Iranian officials were signalling that attacks would cease provided Israel refrained from further action against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
That condition folds Lebanon into a broader regional bargain and is at the heart of the diplomatic struggle.
For nearly a decade, Netanyahu has built a central component of his political identity around a proposition few Israeli leaders could plausibly claim: that he could manage Israel’s relationship with its most important ally while retaining the ability to resist American pressure when necessary.
A source close to Netanyahu said: “He was the Israeli prime minister who could say no to American presidents when Israel’s interests required it, yet still maintain unparalleled access to Washington when it mattered.”
Trump, for his part, has long viewed himself as Israel’s most consequential ally in the White House. Since returning to office, he has repeatedly emphasised his support for Israel and maintained unusually close personal ties with Netanyahu. The challenge is not that the relationship is weak.
By almost any measure, it remains one of the closest relationships between an American president and an Israeli prime minister in modern history, despite what is reported.
“When two leaders become as politically invested in one another as Trump and Netanyahu have, tensions are inevitable,” said the source.
This was apparent during a heated phone call last week in which Trump was alleged to have said: “You’re f***ing crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.”
According to an Axios report, those were the words Trump allegedly used during an explosive phone call with the Israeli Prime Minister.
The leak of the alleged conversation has triggered demands for an investigation from Trump ally Mark Levin, who accused the source for Axios of attempting to damage one of America’s closest alliances.
In Jerusalem, the main question was – who leaked the account of the conversation in an apparent attempt to ruin the relationship?
The source said: “There is a friendship there, but it is also a fragile one. We saw that after Trump’s first term, when he felt Netanyahu had not remained loyal to him following the 2020 election.”
Netanyahu may have made a strategic mistake, argued the source, by allowing Trump to become publicly associated with his domestic political and legal battles.
That became most apparent when the US president asked his Israeli counterpart, Isaac Herzog, to pardon the PM amid his ongoing legal battles.
If Lebanon and Hezbollah are folded into a broader understanding with Iran, Netanyahu may find himself facing a difficult choice between preserving ties with Washington and maintaining Israel’s long-standing security red lines.
How he could sell such a compromise at home to those on the northern border who have been displaced? Netanyahu is the great survivor and salesman of Israeli politics, but the challenge may be beyond even his extraordinary capabilities in the run-up to elections this autumn.
Now the question looms: could Hezbollah become the issue that ultimately breaks the Trump-Netanyahu relationship? The coming weeks may reveal if we have seen the end of what had seemed to be a beautiful friendship.
To get more news, click here to sign up for our free daily newsletter.