The Guardian: Growing Rift Between Netanyahu and Trump Due to Iran War

SadaNews - The Guardian newspaper reported that a growing rift is developing in the relationship between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump amid the struggling war against Iran. The report pointed out that the public statements attempting to portray full coordination between the two sides actually hide an escalating state of mistrust and political discord.

The newspaper's correspondent, Julian Borger, noted that Netanyahu is overly insistent on boasting about the strength of his relationship with President Trump, but Israeli observers believe that this insistence raises further doubts about what is truly happening behind the scenes, especially after leaks indicated that Israel was excluded from some American consultations regarding the war and indirect negotiations with Iran mediated by Pakistan.

The writer quoted American-Israeli political analyst Dahlia Scheindlin saying that Netanyahu's frequent talk about the strength of the relationship with Trump "raises more concern than it reassures," adding that the war "is going very poorly compared to the original goals."

The article argues that the relationship between the two men has been built on a deep political and ideological intersection for years, with both adopting populist methods that enhanced their domestic influence at the expense of traditional institutions.

Borger asserts that Netanyahu has spent many years trying to persuade American presidents to attack Iran and played a pivotal role in pushing Trump to withdraw from the 2015 Iranian nuclear agreement that was made during Barack Obama's administration.

According to the article, the collapse of the nuclear deal in 2018 led to a rapid acceleration of the Iranian nuclear program and a significant stockpile of highly enriched uranium, paving the way for the current crisis.

Borger quotes former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas stating that Netanyahu convinced Trump that the Iranian regime is weak and on the brink of collapse, citing the previous American operation against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro as a model for a swift and low-cost regime change.

According to Pinkas, Netanyahu assured Trump that the Iranian economy is collapsing, the people are on the verge of revolution, and the Revolutionary Guard is losing control. Even the head of the Mossad, David Barnea, contributed to solidifying this image, depicting Iran as "a ripe fruit ready to fall."

However, these assessments, according to the article, have proven to be completely wrong; the Iranian regime did not collapse, and the people did not rise against the authority, while Tehran managed to respond forcefully by targeting American bases and Gulf states, disrupting navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, causing a global economic crisis.

Borger emphasizes that Trump began to feel increasing disappointment towards Netanyahu by the end of March, as the war turned into a political and strategic burden. The U.S. administration gradually stopped involving Israel in some communications related to negotiations with Iran, prompting Israeli officials to rely on their intelligence services to know what is happening.

Trump also began to publicly criticize Netanyahu, especially after Israel targeted the Iranian "South Pars" field, and then later announced via social media that Israel is "forbidden" from continuing to bomb Lebanon, in an unprecedented rebuke of the Israeli Prime Minister.

Borger concludes his article by pointing out that Trump is seeking to close the war file before his upcoming visit to Beijing and his meeting with President Xi Jinping, but the repercussions of the war have intertwined the political fates of the two men. Netanyahu faces elections that could end his political future, while Trump fears the consequences of the war on his domestic standing and the upcoming U.S. elections.

In a striking summary, the writer quotes Alon Pinkas saying that Trump and Netanyahu "have both inflicted severe damage on each other," indicating that the war that brought them together may turn into a burden threatening their political futures together.