The post published by President Donald Trump on Truth Social just moments after the conclusion of his three-hour meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu on February 11 offered a glimpse into the dynamic that likely developed behind the scenes during the meeting. This came after both sides refrained, unlike in previous meetings, from allowing journalists to ask questions. Trump made clear that he had “insisted that negotiations with Iran continue,” implicitly signaling a position at odds with that of Prime Minister Netanyahu, while reminding Tehran of the cost of refusal in the form of Operation Midnight Hammer (June 2025).
Assuming the administration’s approach isn’t a tactical deception ahead of a near-term strike, Trump appears to be pursuing a line of forceful pragmatism. His post is not only a message to Tehran but also serves as a “stop sign” for Israeli aspirations of escalation. Trump views the use of force as leverage intended to bring the adversary to the negotiating table from a position of weakness. From the White House’s perspective, the goal remains to “close files” in the Middle East in order to focus on the great power competition with China—an approach that favors quick solutions, even at the cost of overt friction with Israel’s security concept.
The visit and the responses that followed exposed substantial gaps:
- The Iranian issue—While Netanyahu presented in the Oval Office a red line demanding the dismantling of capabilities (including ballistic capabilities) as a prerequisite, Trump made clear that diplomacy is currently his preferred channel. At the same time, it’s possible that understandings were reached behind closed doors regarding “red lines” and covert coordination mechanisms that would define what constitutes a failure of the negotiations and necessitates a response. In any case, even if the talks fail, Trump will need to take into account—before deciding to embark on a military campaign against Iran—a broad range of domestic political considerations, including hosting the World Cup in June 2026 and the midterm elections in November. He will also have to maneuver between the hawkish wing of his party and voices claiming that Netanyahu is dragging the United States into a war contrary to American interests.
- The future of Gaza and the “Board of Peace”—Netanyahu’s agreement to join the multinational “Board of Peace” is a strategic milestone, yet tensions over the question of sovereignty remain unresolved. While Trump is pushing for a swift multinational solution that would enable a withdrawal of forces and the advancement of a new regional architecture, Israel insists on the need for independent security control and the complete dismantling of Hamas.
Israel finds itself in a “partnership trap” vis-à-vis a president who sees forceful diplomacy as the ultimate instrument. Jerusalem’s tools to influence US policy are more limited than ever. Israel’s traditional approach of applying pressure through Congress or the hawkish wing of the Republican Party now confronts a president who has complete control over his political base and doesn’t tolerate any opposition in his pursuit of a diplomatic achievement. Israel’s immediate test will be whether it can incorporate critical “security adjustments” into Trump’s “deal,” in the understanding that, at this stage, openly opposing the White House’s vision will not halt negotiations with Iran but will only diminish Israel’s influence over shaping the terms.
The post published by President Donald Trump on Truth Social just moments after the conclusion of his three-hour meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu on February 11 offered a glimpse into the dynamic that likely developed behind the scenes during the meeting. This came after both sides refrained, unlike in previous meetings, from allowing journalists to ask questions. Trump made clear that he had “insisted that negotiations with Iran continue,” implicitly signaling a position at odds with that of Prime Minister Netanyahu, while reminding Tehran of the cost of refusal in the form of Operation Midnight Hammer (June 2025).
Assuming the administration’s approach isn’t a tactical deception ahead of a near-term strike, Trump appears to be pursuing a line of forceful pragmatism. His post is not only a message to Tehran but also serves as a “stop sign” for Israeli aspirations of escalation. Trump views the use of force as leverage intended to bring the adversary to the negotiating table from a position of weakness. From the White House’s perspective, the goal remains to “close files” in the Middle East in order to focus on the great power competition with China—an approach that favors quick solutions, even at the cost of overt friction with Israel’s security concept.
The visit and the responses that followed exposed substantial gaps:
Israel finds itself in a “partnership trap” vis-à-vis a president who sees forceful diplomacy as the ultimate instrument. Jerusalem’s tools to influence US policy are more limited than ever. Israel’s traditional approach of applying pressure through Congress or the hawkish wing of the Republican Party now confronts a president who has complete control over his political base and doesn’t tolerate any opposition in his pursuit of a diplomatic achievement. Israel’s immediate test will be whether it can incorporate critical “security adjustments” into Trump’s “deal,” in the understanding that, at this stage, openly opposing the White House’s vision will not halt negotiations with Iran but will only diminish Israel’s influence over shaping the terms.