The ‘Bibi Wagging the Dog’ Dilemma: How Trump’s Iran Pivot is Sidelining Netanyahu
Table of Contents
A Fracture in the ‘Historic’ Alliance
In February, the geopolitical alignment between Washington and Jerusalem seemed airtight. Following coordinated strikes by American and Israeli fighter jets against Iranian targets, President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed their synergy as a blueprint for a new era of cooperation. However, three months later, that unity is fraying. What began as a shared military campaign has evolved into a US-led diplomatic process that leaves Netanyahu increasingly isolated.
While the Prime Minister has maintained a public facade of support for the Trump administration, sources close to the Israeli government describe a growing sense of betrayal. Behind closed doors, the consensus is that Israel’s influence over the current US-Iran negotiations has evaporated, leaving the Prime Minister to watch from the sidelines as a deal takes shape that may undermine Israel’s long-term security architecture.
The Uranium Sticking Point
The core of the tension lies in the specifics of the emerging interim agreement. Netanyahu has long maintained that any deal with Tehran that does not permanently remove its stockpile of enriched uranium is a failure. For Israel, the distance between current Iranian stockpiles and a functional nuclear weapon is a matter of days, not years.
According to an Israeli official speaking to CNN, there is a pervasive fear that Trump is settling for a “bad interim deal”—one based on statements of intent rather than verifiable removals of nuclear material. The risk is twofold: not only could Iran play a diplomatic game of cat-and-mouse with the US, but the easing of economic sanctions could provide the regime with a financial windfall. Netanyahu had pushed for strikes on oil facilities to accelerate a regime collapse; instead, he faces a scenario where the blockade of Iranian ports is lifted, effectively funding the very regime he seeks to destabilize.
The Lebanon Complication
The friction extends beyond Tehran to the northern border. Iran is reportedly leveraging the negotiations to secure a ceasefire in Lebanon. This presents a tactical nightmare for Netanyahu, as Hezbollah has intensified its drone incursions into northern Israeli communities. While the US has attempted to restrain Israeli military responses in Lebanon to protect the broader diplomatic track, Netanyahu has recently ordered the IDF to expand operations, insisting on “freedom of action.”
This defiance is not just a strategic choice but a political necessity. Netanyahu is under immense pressure from far-right coalition partners, specifically ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who have demanded a more aggressive stance. Ben Gvir has gone so far as to urge the Prime Minister to confront Trump directly, asserting that the state cannot tolerate being compromised for the sake of an American diplomatic win.
Regime Change in DC vs. Tehran
The current dynamic is a sharp departure from Netanyahu’s scorched-earth campaign against the 2015 JCPOA (the Obama-era nuclear deal). Back then, the Prime Minister used a high-profile address to the US Congress to frame the deal as a historic mistake. Today, however, he cannot afford the same public antagonism. Having staked his political capital on his personal relationship with Donald Trump, an open rift could be catastrophic as Israeli elections loom.
Instead, the blame is being redirected. Pro-Netanyahu media outlets, such as Channel 14, have targeted the architects of the current deal—Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, and JD Vance. Anchor Yaakov Bardugo recently critiqued the team for choosing “the economic world over the existential one,” arguing that the negotiators are ignoring the reality of those living on the front lines.
Yet, some analysts suggest the failure was one of Israeli perception. One source familiar with the discussions noted that Israeli leadership was so focused on achieving regime change in Tehran that they missed the shift in Washington. As the narrative grew that “Bibi was wagging the dog”—effectively pulling the US into a Middle Eastern war—Trump felt the need to reassert total control over the narrative and the decision-making process.
