Monday’s meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump marked their sixth encounter since Trump took office nearly a year ago.
Once again, the agenda was expected to revolve around three main concerns: Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon.
What sets this rendezvous apart is that hostilities have formally ended across these fronts, at least in Washington’s view. According to Israeli officials, however, roughly 30% of Israel’s operational objectives remain unfulfilled.
It is estimated that Netanyahu will try to convince the US president that Israel must retain the freedom to act.
One of those goals pertains to the return of the last October 7 massacre hostage, St.-Sgt.-Maj. Ran Gvili.
Netanyahu was expected to try to convince the US president that Israel must retain the freedom to act.
This freedom relates to finishing the dismantling of Hamas’s military infrastructure in Gaza, curbing Iran’s ability to resume ballistic-missile development, and remaining on high alert in Lebanon and Syria, where officials say security conditions are still too fragile for normalization.
The prime minister’s challenge lies in the shifting mood within the White House. Trump’s inner circle, according to sources familiar with internal discussions, believes that Hamas disarmament in Gaza may be achievable through diplomatic and economic means, without Israeli forces resuming combat.
When it comes to Iran, the administration has reiterated that any return to nuclear-weapons development constitutes a red line. Yet officials have been less vocal about the Islamic Republic’s ballistic-missile program.
How Syria and Turkey fit in
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa is reportedly considered by the Trump administration as being a stabilizing factor – one Israel should avoid confronting directly. And Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is increasingly viewed by the Trump administration not as a disruptor but as a potential regional partner.
Those positions were expected to shape the conversation. While Netanyahu might present compelling evidence for continued Israeli operations, he also faces pressure from US advisers who are focused on securing a long-term diplomatic achievement in what Trump has described as “the best future for the Middle East in 3,000 years.”
These are the positions Netanyahu has to confront. Although he arrives armed with intelligence and evidence, he still faces the stance of most of the president’s advisers, as well as Trump’s own desire not only for calm but for a plan that immortalizes his legacy, as it bears his name.
There is one more thing to consider here as well: There is a limit to how many times one can tell Trump “no.” So, which of these issues will Netanyahu ultimately be forced to say “yes” to?