New York Times: Trump Dominates Decision on War with Iran; Netanyahu Just a Passenger

SadaNews - The New York Times revealed a noticeable decline in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's status within the framework of U.S.-Israeli coordination regarding the war with Iran, after having presented himself as a key partner to U.S. President Donald Trump in managing the military and political confrontation with Tehran.

According to the report prepared for the newspaper by David Halbfinger and Ronen Bergman, Netanyahu entered the war believing that joint strikes between the United States and Israel could lead to the overthrow of the Iranian regime and the permanent termination of its nuclear program.

He appeared as a direct partner

During the early stages of the escalation, Netanyahu appeared to be a direct partner with Trump in decision-making, even publicly speaking about near-daily communications between them to coordinate political and military steps.

The authors noted that the scene changed rapidly after the main objectives of the war faltered, and Washington began moving towards a ceasefire agreement with Iran. They mentioned that the U.S. administration gradually distanced Israel from the details of the negotiations, to the extent that Israeli officials had to rely on intelligence channels and regional communications to understand what was happening between Washington and Tehran.

A political blow

The report sees this shift as a political blow to Netanyahu, who built much of his domestic image on his ability to maintain an exceptional relationship with American presidents, especially Trump. However, the war revealed an increasing divergence in priorities between the two sides, especially after Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and oil prices rose, pushing Trump to prioritize halting the fighting rather than continuing the escalation.

The authors clarify that Israel entered the war with three main objectives: overthrowing the Iranian regime, destroying the nuclear program, and ending the ballistic missile program, yet none of these objectives were decisively achieved. In fact, subsequent American proposals spoke of freezing Iranian nuclear activity for a specific period instead of fully terminating it, recalling the nuclear agreement signed by the Obama administration in 2015, which Netanyahu strongly opposed at the time.

Israeli concerns

The report indicates Israeli concerns that any new agreement might lead to the easing of economic sanctions on Iran, allowing Tehran to rebuild its military capabilities and support its regional allies such as Hezbollah.

On the military side, the report reveals that Israel carried out several strikes against Iranian oil and gas facilities after prior coordination with Washington, but the Trump administration later rushed to distance itself from some of these operations or publicly criticize them due to fears of the war expanding and threatening global energy supplies.

The report also pointed out that Washington halted other Israeli plans, including a proposal to use Kurdish fighters inside Iranian territory, after Trump had initially shown support for the idea before later retracting it.

Transitioning to the executor's position

The authors argue that Israel has gradually transitioned from a "equal partner" position to being closer to an executor of U.S. policies, especially with its increasing military and political dependence on American support. They cited statements from Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, who said that his country "is just waiting for the green light from the United States."

In conclusion, the authors indicate that over time, Netanyahu has had to adjust his political rhetoric and war objectives, shifting from discussing the complete removal of the Iranian threat to focusing on the strength of the alliance with the United States as the most important achievement. They view this shift as reflecting an increasing recognition within Israel that the future confrontation with Iran is largely subject to American calculations rather than its own Israeli vision.

Source: New York Times