US President Donald Trump met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on the 11th to discuss a range of issues including Iran, Gaza, and the broader Middle East situation.
Experts and media widely believe Netanyahu's visit to the US aims to influence US-Iran negotiations and persuade Washington to raise its demands on Tehran. While the US and Israel share deep strategic interests regarding Iran, policy differences exist. Israel's calculations could become an "uncertain factor" in the US-Iran talks.
Some observers suggest the timing of the meeting indicates possible coordination on military action.
Was the US Trip an Urgent Mission with a Hidden Agenda?
The meeting between the US and Israeli leaders lasted approximately three hours, was conducted entirely behind closed doors, involved no media presence, and concluded without a joint statement.
Following the meeting, Trump stated on social media that he insists on continuing US-Iran negotiations, with an agreement being the US "preference." The Israeli Prime Minister's Office issued a statement saying Netanyahu emphasized Israel's security needs during the meeting, and both sides agreed to maintain close coordination.
US and Iranian representatives held indirect talks in Oman last week. Both sides signaled a willingness to continue negotiations but failed to reach consensus on key issues. Iran has consistently stated it will not abandon uranium enrichment, will not negotiate with the US regarding its missile program, and that talks are limited solely to its nuclear program.
Prior to his visit, Netanyahu stated his "primary" objective was to push for a US-Iran agreement that goes "beyond just the Iranian nuclear program." Multiple media outlets reported Netanyahu was originally scheduled to visit on the 18th. Israeli media analysis suggests he advanced his trip due to dissatisfaction with the current state of US-Iran negotiations, hoping to "influence the talks" and lobby Trump to include issues like Iran's ballistic missile program.
According to Israeli media reports, Israel's position is that any agreement must guarantee Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, completely eliminate its uranium enrichment capabilities, restrict its ballistic missile program, and halt its support and funding for "regional proxies," thereby comprehensively weakening Iran's military influence in the Middle East. Sima Shine, a senior researcher at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, believes that if Iran secures sanctions relief in exchange for merely a "nuclear deal," it could rearm itself and its proxies, posing a serious threat to Israel.
However, analysis from Afghanistan's *8 AM Daily* suggests the US is primarily concerned with curbing Iran's nuclear capabilities. For Trump, while Iran's missile program and regional influence are important, they are not comparable to the nuclear issue.
On the 11th, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Nasser Kanaani stated that Iran is willing to discuss its uranium enrichment levels and stockpiles, provided its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are genuinely respected. Public opinion suggests Iran hopes to trade concessions on enrichment for US sanctions relief.
Analysis from Russia's *Nezavisimaya Gazeta* posits that from Israel's perspective, now is the optimal time to strike Iran. If the Iranian regime were to collapse, Israel's increasingly assertive military activities in the Middle East would face less constraint.
Synchronizing Watches for Military Action?
Some Israeli media reported that the Netanyahu-Trump meeting aimed to formulate a US-Israel "joint plan of action" in case US-Iran negotiations fail. Analysis by *The New York Times* suggests Netanyahu hopes to persuade Trump to pressure Iran to limit its missile program and convince him to authorize military strikes against Iran if it refuses.
Although Trump avoided commenting directly on Israeli demands after the meeting, he told US media the previous day that any potential deal with Iran "must be a good deal—no nuclear program, no ballistic missiles."
Analysts point out that while there appear to be subtle differences between the US and Israel regarding the pace and scope of negotiations, there is no fundamental conflict in their positions. Furthermore, given that the US views Israel as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" in the Middle East, it cannot completely ignore Israeli concerns. Additionally, some figures in both countries argue that Iran is using negotiations to "buy time."
In fact, the US has maintained military pressure on Iran even while negotiating. The US Navy's USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group has previously been deployed to the Middle East. On the 10th, Trump stated he was considering sending a second carrier strike group to the region, to be prepared for military action should talks with Iran fail.
Expert and media interpretation suggests that with continued US military buildup in the Middle East and the next round of US-Iran talks yet to have a confirmed date, location, or agenda, the prospects for negotiation are highly uncertain, and the risk of US military action against Iran remains high.
Some analysis indicates the true intent behind the Trump administration's troop increase in the Middle East—whether to "pressure for talks" or "prepare for war"—is unclear. Negotiations might merely be a smokescreen intended to provide cover for a potential renewed US-Israel military strike against Iran, while also helping to convince the public that military intervention is a last resort.
Trita Parsi, an Iran expert at the US think tank Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, believes that demanding "zero uranium enrichment" from Iran, restrictions on ballistic missiles, and an end to support for regional militant groups "might still be Trump's real bottom line." Excessive demands from the US and Israel could eventually lead to the collapse of the US-Iran negotiations.
Comments