On September 30, 2013, just after Rosh Hashanah, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met in the Oval Office with then-president Barack Obama. At that meeting, Obama revealed that for the past five months, the US had been holding secret nuclear talks with Iran in Oman.
Just three days earlier, the US president held a “historic” phone call with Iran’s newly elected “reformist” president, Hassan Rouhani.
Though Israel had been kept in the dark about talks between its closest ally and its bitterest enemy, Netanyahu’s immediate public reaction was restrained.
That didn’t last long.
The next day, Netanyahu stood at the podium of the United Nations and launched a blistering attack on Rouhani, branding him a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” The subtext was clear: Obama was being duped. Netanyahu argued that sanctions on Iran were working and negotiations would give Tehran a lifeline just as the pressure was bearing fruit.“I want there to be no confusion on this point,” Netanyahu said with signature pathos. “Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone.”
A constant concern: Iran
Fast-forward to April 7, 2025, just days before Passover. Once again, Netanyahu was in the Oval Office, this time with President Donald Trump. And once again, the topic was Iran. This time, Trump informed Netanyahu not of talks that had already occurred but of negotiations scheduled to begin five days later – again, in Oman.
Unlike in 2013, Netanyahu’s reaction was not only muted at the time but also largely absent in the days that followed.
No fiery speech in response. No media blitz. No backdoor lobbying of Congress. Instead, before leaving Washington for Israel, he said, “We agree that Iran will not have nuclear weapons. This can be achieved through an agreement, but only if it is a Libya-style agreement: entering, dismantling the facilities, removing all equipment, under American supervision and execution – that’s good.”
If it isn’t that kind of agreement, Netanyahu added, and if the Iranians are stalling for time, then the military option remains on the table. “Everyone understands this. We discussed this at length.”
But the tone wasn’t defiant; it was resigned.
Netanyahu likely sees striking parallels between now and 2013.
Then, Iran was economically battered, and international sanctions were biting hard. Today, the country is again weakened: its proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen have been severely degraded, its air defenses compromised, its economy flailing, and domestic discontent simmering. The US has amassed naval power nearby. From Netanyahu’s perspective, the moment seems ripe for pressure – not diplomacy.
So why the near silence now when Washington is opting for diplomacy?
Because this isn’t 2013.
Back then, Netanyahu could afford to confront Obama. He had friends in Congress who would echo his concerns. Today, Republicans control both Congress and the presidency, and the man in the White House is someone Netanyahu cannot afford to alienate.
TRUMP HAS been unyielding in his support of Israel since taking office in January. Favorable steps he has taken include renewing the delivery of weapons halted under former president Joe Biden; giving Israel a green light to wage the war in Gaza as it sees fit; intensifying attacks on the Houthis; floating the idea of emigration from Gaza; defunding UNRWA; withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council; and reinstating sanctions on the International Criminal Court.
In Netanyahu’s eyes, this president deserves to be accommodated. Or, as he said while sitting next to the president on Monday, “You have been a remarkable friend of the State of Israel. You stand by us, you are standing with us, you are a great, great champion of our lives.”
He also saw what happened to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky when he publicly questioned American diplomatic engagement with Russia. The message was clear: challenging the US president, especially when he considers himself your greatest friend, will backfire with great intensity.
So Netanyahu bit his tongue. He did not challenge Trump over the intent to negotiate with the Iranians – not in the Oval Office, not on the way home, and not after he arrived back in Israel.
This is the cost of political alignment. With access comes limits. The closer the relationship, the harder it becomes to say no. Trump’s unwavering support makes it politically unthinkable for Netanyahu to push back – even on a fundamental issue like Iran. This is not a time to clash with a president who has been so supportive; this is a time – as Netanyahu appears to understand – to just grin and bear it.
NETANYAHU ARRIVED in Washington – his second visit in 10 weeks – not looking for any clash with the president, but, rather, to underline the closeness between the two leaders and the two countries.
And at first glance, he succeeded. The visuals were striking: warm handshakes and smiles at the photo ops that conveyed the message that this relationship is close, the dialogue is open, and the trust is intact.But beneath the optics, the visit delivered little of substance.
There was no breakthrough on the hostages. No stiffening measures against Iran policy – if anything, the opposite. And on one issue where some headway was expected – tariffs – the answer was, at least for now, no.
Trump’s recent 17% tariff on Israeli imports landed at a difficult moment for the country’s economy, already staggering under the weight of war. Netanyahu was the first leader to meet Trump face-to-face over the issue and hoped – considering their good relationship – he could persuade him to relent.
He failed.
Trump listened, nodded, and moved on.
For Trump, Netanyahu’s visit served a different purpose: reinforcing the narrative that America’s economic leverage is real and that even allies come to Washington when the US flexes its muscle. A foreign leader flying in to negotiate tariffs? That’s a win for “America First.”
So, while Netanyahu hoped the meeting would project statesmanship to his domestic audience, it was even more useful for Trump’s political messaging: world leaders respect his economic agenda – and respond to it. Netanyahu’s visit gave Trump what he needed: a stage to show that others play by America’s rules.
NETANYAHU also came to Washington looking for firm US backing as tensions with Turkey escalated.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has ramped up anti-Israel rhetoric and is positioning himself for greater influence in Syria. Recent Israeli airstrikes on Syrian bases were widely interpreted as warnings not just to Damascus but to Ankara.
Netanyahu wanted Trump to echo that message, but the president did not oblige.
Instead, he offered praise for Erdogan, essentially congratulating him for taking over Syria through surrogates, and lauded the good relationship he said he enjoyed with the Turkish leader, saying they “like” each other.
No warnings. No condemnation. No signal of solidarity with Israel’s concerns about Turkey’s presence in Syria, only a commitment to help the two countries resolve the issues between them as they arise.
It was another underwhelming moment. The issue was raised, but the message was not delivered. A reminder that even with Trump – who describes himself as the best friend Israel has ever had in the White House – Netanyahu’s influence has limits. What was supposed to be a message to Ankara turned into a diplomatic shrug, not at all the signal Netanyahu had hoped would be projected to the region.
IF NETANYAHU hoped the trip would mute political static at home, this hope, too, went unfulfilled.
On his return flight, the High Court of Justice issued an interim injunction blocking his move to fire Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) chief Ronen Bar. The court urged the sides to find a “creative solution,” postponing a full-blown constitutional crisis until after Passover.
But the tension didn’t fade. Voices in Netanyahu’s camp to freeze Bar out – cutting off contact without formally dismissing him – got stronger. But how realistic is that? With rockets still falling, terrorist threats always looming, and the Shin Bet’s mission as critical as ever, can Israel afford that kind of standoff?
And what of Bar? He accepted responsibility for October 7 and vowed to resign – but is now dragging the country through a fight over staying a few more weeks or months? For what? For principle? To show who is boss? The same questions could be asked of Netanyahu’s refusal to find a compromise on this issue.
Against that backdrop, the political logic of Netanyahu’s trip last week to Hungary – with the quick Washington visit added on at the end – becomes more understandable, even if he came under criticism for being out of the country for a week while the nation remained at war.
This was an opportunity, if even just for a moment, for the prime minister to change the channel – to steer the conversation away from institutional chaos at home to high diplomacy and leadership in Washington. Sitting in the Oval Office next to Trump, who praised Netanyahu and said he hoped he was appreciated in Israel, Netanyahu tried to project stability and leadership.
But that message was muffled by a lack of results. Netanyahu didn’t get the tariffs lifted, he was informed about negotiations with Iran, there was no movement of hostages, and Trump declined to take sides on Turkey.All of that clarified an uncomfortable truth: even in warm relationships, there are limits.
Under Obama and Biden, Netanyahu pushed back, publicly and often. Under Trump, he doesn’t – because he can’t. The relationship is too tight. The political debt is too high. The risks of confrontation are too steep. There’s too much capital invested. Too much goodwill banked.
Yes, the doors to the White House are open. But that doesn’t mean Israel always gets what it wants. Sometimes, it means Israel gets what it’s given. For example, when Trump turned to Netanyahu after being asked if he would remove the tariffs, he spoke of the $4 billion in military aid Israel gets annually. As if to say, “Don’t now ask for something else.”
Warm relationships have their benefits. But they also have their constraints. Yes, the doors are open. Yes, the support is real. But the space to dissent has shrunk and the room to say no or to push back hard has all but vanished.