Trump’s Deal Puts Netanyahu on the Spot

Published on: June 21, 2026 8:32 AM

The interim memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran has moved the Middle East away from immediate war, but it has also placed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in one of the most difficult positions of his long political career.

Sent to the US Congress on June 19, the 14-point document, titled the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, commits Washington and Tehran to a 60-day negotiating period for a final settlement. It calls for a cessation of military operations, including on the Lebanon front, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the easing of the US naval blockade on Iranian ports, and technical talks on Iran’s nuclear file. Pakistan signed the document as a witness and mediator, giving Islamabad a rare place inside one of the most sensitive diplomatic tracks of the decade.

The White House has already signalled impatience, with Vice President JD Vance issuing an unusually blunt warning to Israeli hardliners, saying Donald Trump was “the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment.”

For Netanyahu, however, the agreement has landed as a strategic disruption. For decades, he built his political identity around three claims: that he could influence Washington, confront Iran, and guarantee Israel’s security through pressure. The emerging deal unsettles all three. It leaves unresolved issues Israel has long regarded as vital: Iran’s ballistic missile programme, Tehran’s support for Hezbollah and other regional allies, and key aspects of its nuclear activity. Sanctions relief, if it proceeds, could also give Tehran the economic space Israel had hoped the war would deny it.

The New York Times observed that the agreement “omits some of the most important things Israel wanted, while the BBC described it as a “political nightmare” for Netanyahu. CNN called it “the moment Netanyahu has been dreading”. The Guardian, quoting former US negotiator Aaron David Miller, noted that no American president has spoken about an Israeli prime minister the way Trump has spoken about Netanyahu. The Atlantic Council saw a widening gap between US and Israeli priorities, while the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) argued that the truce places Netanyahu in a politically precarious position ahead of elections.

Still, not every assessment in Washington treats the tension as an alliance rupture. Michael Singh of the Washington Institute has warned against mistaking friction for a broken US-Israel relationship. Presidential quarrels with Israeli leaders are not new. Gerald Ford warned Yitzhak Rabin in 1975 after frustration over Arab-Israeli negotiations, Ronald Reagan pressed Menachem Begin over Beirut in 1982, and Joe Biden urged Netanyahu to “take the win” after Iran’s 2024 missile barrage. Israel, Singh argues, remains a highly capable US ally, even when its interests do not fully align with Washington’s immediate political needs.

That distinction matters because the present dispute is not over rhetoric alone. It is over Lebanon, now the most combustible clause in the US-Iran understanding. The memorandum calls for an end to hostilities on that front, but Israel continues to insist that its troops will remain in a security zone in southern Lebanon for as long as necessary. Netanyahu has said Israel will not tolerate attacks on its soldiers or territory and will exact a heavy price from Hezbollah.

The political pressure on Netanyahu is intense. A poll by Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies found that 70 per cent of Jewish Israelis support intensifying the fight against Hezbollah. National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir has gone further, declaring on social media: “For every tear shed by an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers should cry. All of Lebanon should burn.”

US intelligence assessments now reportedly warn that Netanyahu may take steps that undermine Trump’s effort to turn the interim memorandum into a lasting peace deal, particularly by maintaining military operations against Hezbollah. The concern in Washington is that Israel’s refusal to withdraw from southern Lebanon could make renewed hostilities almost inevitable. According to one US official, continuing to occupy part of Lebanon was “a recipe for disaster” and without full Israeli withdrawal, renewed fighting with Hezbollah was “all but certain.”

The White House has already signalled impatience, with Vice President JD Vance issuing an unusually blunt warning to Israeli hardliners, saying Donald Trump was “the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment” and that if he were in the Israeli cabinet, he would not attack the only powerful ally Israel had left. Trump himself has said he has a “little dispute” with Netanyahu over Lebanon and has urged the Israeli leader not to “knock down a building every time somebody walks into it that’s from Hezbollah”.

This public friction has deepened the sense that Netanyahu’s freedom of manoeuvre has narrowed. Talking to American media, Trump described his relationship with Netanyahu as good but added that Washington had to keep him “a little bit sane”. He also claimed Israel would have been “eviscerated” without his support and said Israeli officials “do as I say.”

Think-tank assessments point to the same pressure point. CSIS has described the deal as a major blow for Israel and specifically for Netanyahu, while warning that the Lebanon front has the greatest potential to derail the arrangement. It noted that Israeli and US strikes may have degraded Iran’s military capabilities, but the agreement appears to preserve key sources of Iran’s regional power projection because it does not directly address ballistic missiles or proxy networks.

Meanwhile, the Atlantic Council’s Shalom Lipner writes that only 18 per cent of Israelis support the deal, reflecting a wider belief that Israel lost the war. More troubling for Israel, he notes, is the deterioration of trust with Washington:

“Trump refused to share a preliminary text of the MOU with Netanyahu, whose judgment he has brought into question-using multiple expletives-while, at the same time, describing Iranian interlocutors as “very rational people [who] … were nice to deal with.” The administration has curtailed Israel’s autonomy not only vis-à-vis Iran but also in Lebanon, where Trump is suggesting to “let Syria take care of Hezbollah” instead.

Trump reportedly warned Netanyahu: “You better be careful, or you will be on your own very soon.”

According to Nicholas Blanford of the Atlantic Council, the memorandum may imply an end to the war, but it does not clearly state that Israeli troops must withdraw from Lebanese territory. Hezbollah, meanwhile, appears more closely aligned with Iran and more adamant about retaining its weapons, especially now that its “resistance” narrative has been revived by Israel’s renewed occupation of parts of southern Lebanon. Blanford’s verdict is bleak: “In my thirty-two years living in Lebanon, I don’t think I have ever seen a greater mess with more unpredictable consequences.”

Amid these shifts, Pakistan’s diplomatic role has acquired unusual visibility. Speaking in the National Assembly this week, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif hailed the Islamabad Memorandum as a historic achievement and credited Pakistan’s civil and military leadership for keeping the process alive when it appeared close to collapse. “Many nations spend centuries seeking such honour, but fail to achieve it. Today, Pakistan’s name is being mentioned around the world with respect and dignity,” he said. Michael Kugelman echoed this, declaring: “Pakistan is one of the biggest winners from this deal… (and)has conclusively defied longstanding Indian efforts to undercut, if not isolate, Pakistan on the world stage.

That recognition is important, but the harder test lies ahead. The next 60 days will determine whether the Islamabad Memorandum becomes a milestone or a pause before renewed conflict. Technical negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions sequencing, enriched uranium, ballistic missiles and regional proxies remain unresolved. Tehran will try to retain leverage, Israeli hardliners will resist restraint, and Washington will have to sell the memorandum to a Congress wary of Iranian commitments.

The writer is OpEd Editor (Daily Times) and can be reached at durenayab786 @gmail.com. She tweets @DureAkram.