The contradictions between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who for years demonstrated unprecedented strategic unity—are entering the public sphere. Today’s agenda presents the allies with a fundamental question: where do the boundaries of a “necessary victory” end?
While the White House shows clear fatigue regarding operational costs and seeks a swift exit from the active phase of the conflict, the Israeli leadership, by contrast, intends to use the current military momentum for a radical and final shift in the regional balance of power.
Washington: A “Quick Finale” Strategy and Economic Pragmatism
Donald Trump outlined his priorities with characteristic bluntness even before his official address to the American people. According to his calculations, the active US military presence in the operation against Iran should be limited to an extremely tight timeframe—”maybe two weeks, maybe a little longer.” Notably, the American leader is deliberately lowering the bar for diplomatic demands: he requires neither a signed capitulation from Tehran nor long-term peace treaties to withdraw the contingent.
“If we feel that they have been knocked back into the Stone Age for a long time and cannot create a nuclear weapon, we will leave,” Trump stated at the White House. This rhetoric reflects a purely pragmatic approach: Washington’s only critical objective is the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear potential. Trump is under immense pressure from domestic factors.
The sharp spike in energy prices caused by instability in the Persian Gulf, and the subsequent turbulence in the stock markets, poses a direct threat to his campaign promises. In the eyes of the current administration, the Iranian campaign is transforming from an “act of retribution” into a dangerous strategic gamble that must be curtailed before it triggers a global economic crisis.
Jerusalem: A Stake in Existential Victory and Regime Change
Benjamin Netanyahu’s position appears to be a mirror image of the American approach. The Israeli Prime Minister is now openly opposing his ally on the issue of timing. In a recent interview with Newsmax, Netanyahu emphasised that the military operation’s tasks are more than halfway complete “in terms of goals, but not necessarily in terms of time.” This statement serves as a clear signal: Jerusalem does not intend to cease fire at Washington’s command.
Netanyahu includes in his list of achievements not only the elimination of thousands of officers from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) but also the systematic destruction of the country’s military-industrial foundation. However, behind the military reports lies a larger political goal—regime change in Iran. Netanyahu is convinced that only the internal collapse of the theocracy guarantees Israel’s security. “I think this regime will collapse from within,” he declares, making it clear that Israel is prepared to maintain military pressure until social discontent in Iran reaches a boiling point.
Lebanon as a New Theatre of War: Creating Buffer Zones
The Israeli strategy demonstrates a dangerous tendency toward expanding the geography of the conflict. The vector of Jerusalem’s military attention is increasingly shifting toward Lebanon, where Hezbollah forces are stationed. Defense Minister Israel Katz and Netanyahu himself have repeatedly stressed that the Lebanese front will remain active regardless of how negotiations regarding Iran conclude.
According to available data, Israel plans not only to strike militant infrastructure but also to secure a safety zone approximately 30 kilometres wide in southern Lebanon. This involves the near-total destruction of civilian infrastructure in the borderlands and the establishment of a long-term occupation regime. Even if Trump forces Netanyahu to formally end the war with Iran, the Israeli government appears to have already decided to turn Lebanon into a zone of permanent military presence.
Netanyahu’s Personal Interests: Power at Any Cost and Putin-esque Methods
Analyzing Jerusalem’s hardline stance, it is impossible to ignore Israel’s own domestic political context and the personal motives of its leader. Benjamin Netanyahu has been at the helm of the country for a total of more than 20 years. The last decade of his rule has been marked by systemic attempts to usurp power, which many experts and opposition figures compare to the methods of Vladimir Putin or Viktor Orbán.
His strategy for political survival is built on the systematic destruction of any strong opponents and the replacement of professional, independent personnel in key government positions with personally loyal, but often completely incompetent, functionaries. Such personnel policy has already led to a serious erosion of state institutions and a decrease in the efficiency of the state apparatus. It has particularly negatively impacted the performance of both security structures and the combat readiness of the Israeli military.
Despite resistance from civil society and protests involving hundreds of thousands, Netanyahu stubbornly continues a course toward weakening the independence of the judicial system and seizing control over key media outlets.
It is important to emphasise that for many years, criminal cases involving corruption, fraud, and breach of trust have been open and are being deliberated in courts against the Prime Minister. In expert circles, there is a steady opinion that the current escalation of military actions and the intentional prolonging of the conflict are the only ways for Netanyahu to avoid imminent legal accountability.
A state of permanent war allows the Prime Minister to manipulate the national agenda, indefinitely postpone court hearings, and extend his stay in the head of government’s chair, effectively making the security of the entire country a hostage to his personal interests. Like other authoritarian leaders, he successfully instils in an impoverished society a legend of an external threat and the notion that “all countries are antisemitic,” which serves as an effective internal tool for suppressing democracy and consolidating power in his own hands.
European Security Under Threat
For European countries, the rift between Trump and Netanyahu signals the beginning of a period of deep uncertainty. If the US indeed abdicates its role as the guarantor of security in the Strait of Hormuz, the responsibility for energy logistics will fall on the shoulders of the EU. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has already stated Germany’s readiness to dispatch warships to protect tankers, while British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has initiated an emergency international conference on maritime security.
However, the main threat lies in relations within NATO. Frustrated by the lack of active support from Europeans on the Iranian issue, Trump is once again reviving threats of a US withdrawal from the Alliance. At a time when transatlantic unity is fracturing, the Middle East crisis is turning into a catalyst for the destruction of the entire European security architecture, leaving questions about further support for Ukraine unanswered.
Latest Posts
