Afrasianet - Jamal Zahalka - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu entered the White House on Monday through the back door, without an official reception, without a photograph and without a press release, suggesting that Washington does not see his visit as a "pride" for the benefit of the hosts. Netanyahu met with U.S. President Donald Trump and a front-line staff of U.S. officials: Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hagseth,
CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Special Envoy Steve Whitkoff. Netanyahu is an influential Israeli official with political weight, but the meeting was attended by Netanyahu's closest confidant, former Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer, who does not hold any official position and was recently summoned by Netanyahu to manage the Syrian and Lebanese files, and he relies on him and trusts his abilities, diplomatic prowess, political toughness, and close and intimate relations with officials in the White House. The sole decision-maker in it.
However, some Israeli analysts interpreted this broad American participation in the meeting as ensuring that Netanyahu did not influence Trump in the direction he wanted, which is further escalation and leading to the renewal of the all-out war, which would implicate the United States.
Netanyahu warned against appearing to be dragging Trump into war again, after he did so in their previous meeting, but he passed his entire messages under the guise of "presenting the Israeli point of view," which places the Iranian nuclear file as a central issue, adding that he believes that it has become more urgent and that "it is inevitable to launch additional attacks on nuclear facilities, which the Iranian regime has restored, and on other facilities to destabilize the regime and make it less capable of reviving its nuclear project." Israeli news reports.
Perhaps one of the most important goals of Netanyahu's visit and his insistence on meeting Trump is his conviction that the US president is close to making decisive decisions for Iran, and Israel wants its position to be taken into account at this critical time.
But Trump's listening now is elsewhere, namely the Strait of Hormuz crisis, which he sees as a top priority and of great importance and cannot be postponed, and it seems that he has reached a decision to rush to address it and postpone the Iranian nuclear issue until after the midterm elections next November, which also means after the Israeli elections in October.
For Trump, opening the Strait of Hormuz on American terms is tantamount to achieving victory, but failure to do so means in practice that Iran imposed its conditions and won the war even if it lost the military battle.
This is true, but it is less than half the truth, because the nuclear file is a "project of life" for Netanyahu, and he and those around him believe that Trump is on the verge of deciding his decisions and wants to ensure that these decisions are in Israel's favor, or at least do not cause serious damage to it.
Perhaps what Israel fears most is that Trump will show softness on the nuclear file in exchange for Iranian softness on the Strait of Hormuz, which only matters to the extent that it affects the Iranian nuclear and missile file. Netanyahu's position in Washington these days is very different from what it was during his previous visit to Washington.
In the previous meeting, Netanyahu presented his plan for a war on Iran, heralding the regime's overthrow through a four-legged plan: assassinating the leadership, entering Kurdish armed forces, a powerful propaganda campaign, and installing a legal figure said to be former Iranian President Ahmadinejad.
This plan was only carried out by the assassination of the Supreme Leader and a number of Iranian leaders, and it collapsed completely, and with it the confidence in the credibility of what Netanyahu says and promises.
At the meeting at the White House, Trump's staff thoroughly examined Netanyahu's words to ensure that they fit the U.S. interest and the administration's priorities.
However, whatever the nature of the meeting, it did not erase the differences between the two. Netanyahu wants to escalate to a full-scale war against Iran, and the Israeli public and the military and political elites mostly support this approach, while Trump is inclined to a diplomatic solution and de-escalation, and this is the position of the majority of Americans and a large part of officials in Washington.
Netanyahu is also frantically looking for an achievement on the eve of the elections, which polls indicate he is on his way to losing and the prime minister's position with her, meaning that the matter is personal and fateful for his entire political career.
Trump is not facing a decisive personal battle, but rather an election battle that could decide the issue of a majority in Congress, which is important to him but not a fateful matter for his political soul.
Trump cannot ignore that Netanyahu has become a hated person on the American street, nor that many accuse him of being dragged behind him. This may explain the cold reception the Israeli prime minister received at the White House and entered through his back door.
In a poll conducted by The Economist, 49% supported Netanyahu's arrest in implementation of the ICC's decision, while only 27% opposed the arrest.
Repeated polls have shown that the majority of citizens in the United States have a very negative attitude toward Israel and Netanyahu personally, and have also highlighted that most of them oppose escalation and war and want to stop military operations in the Gulf entirely.
So far, this coup in American public opinion has not led to a radical change in the US administration's policies towards Israel, but it has a cumulative effect in cooling the impulse behind what Israel is seeking, while maintaining the strong strategic alliance relations between the US empire and the Israeli state.
It is not clear what happened in the Trump-Netanyahu meeting and behind the scenes of its preparations and follow-up on its outcomes, as what was published about it may be just deliberate misinformation.
For example, Israel's state media chief, Tzipi Hatovely (who previously served as ambassador to London), said that the issue of "Axe Mountain" was not raised or discussed, and that this could be a disguise directed at Iran.
She also stated that Trump did not ask Netanyahu to withdraw from Syria or Lebanon, but there are indications to the contrary, as Israel's Channel 12 military correspondent, Nir Dvori, reported that "the decisions that Trump is expected to make will change the face of the Middle East.
Closing the fronts in Syria and Lebanon will ease the burden on the army, and the security establishment recommends withdrawal only in exchange for political gains that guarantee security for the residents of the north."
This does not necessarily mean that the issue was raised at the Washington meeting, but it is an indication that the United States is asking Israel to close files that are "not necessary" — as US officials have said.
We don't need it to get information about Jabal al-Fas," and Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz's statements, "If the United States asks us to withdraw from Lebanon and Syria, we will not withdraw."
But the irony is that revealing disagreement is often a sign of the strength and durability of the relationship and not afraid of breaking it due to a statement or disagreement.
The political noise does not affect the depth of the long-standing strategic ties between the U.S. empire and its central ally in the Middle East.
________________
Jamal Zahalka - Palestinian writer and researcher
________________
