WHAT appears to be a major fissure in the long and seemingly rock-solid relationship between United States President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has emerged.
Trump has admitted calling Netanyahu “crazy” during an expletive-laden phone conversation on June 1 over the fighting in Lebanon.
“I did,” Trump said. “I wouldn’t say angry. I was a little bit perturbed at his constant fighting with Lebanon, you know.”
“Little bit perturbed” doesn’t quite describe Trump’s harangue. “You’re f*****g crazy,” he was said to have told Netanyahu. “Everybody hates Israel because of this.”
Despite the outburst, Trump said he and Netanyahu get along very well.
The Israeli leader himself later acknowledged the fiery exchange but downplayed it as a minor “tactical disagreement” that typifies close relationships.
It is tempting to frame this incident as glaring proof that the Trump-Netanyahu bromance is on the brink of a breakup. It will take more than a stream of invectives to take down an alliance that has endured one political crisis after another.
Trump stood by Netanyahu’s decision to exact revenge on Hamas by allowing the Israeli military to rampage in the Gaza Strip. He gave Netanyahu the go-ahead to bomb Beirut and step up the Israeli offensive in southern Lebanon.
Trump did all this while fending off a storm of criticism for supporting Israel’s military adventures in the region.
In return, Netanyahu has guaranteed that US political influence in the Middle East is unchallenged by other players like Russia and China.
But the war with Iran is forcing a shift in US policy that could drive a deeper wedge between Washington and Jerusalem. Trump has grown impatient with the stalemated talks to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and is looking for someone to blame for it. He can’t pin it on Iran, which he repeatedly claims to have vanquished. He tried to blame the US’ allies for refusing to heed his call to join the war, but no one took him seriously.
That leaves Netanyahu. It was the Israeli strongman who is believed to have sold the idea to Trump of attacking Iran, convinced that Israel’s archfoe was ripe for a regime change. Trump reportedly agreed after being assured that the conflict was going to be an “excursion” that would last only weeks.
He was dead wrong. Operation Epic Fury was carried out for almost five months. It ended only on Wednesday, when US Secretary of State Marco Rubio formally declared during a congressional testimony that the military campaign was over. The US military suffered 13 fatalities, 42 aircraft damaged or lost, and billions of dollars worth of structural damage to its bases and facilities in the Gulf region.
With an election approaching, Trump needs to rethink his approach to the Iran war. Bombing Iran into submission is definitely no longer an option.
According to one outlook, the White House is now drawing a line when US strategic goals are at risk, and no longer automatically backing every Israeli move.
That means de-escalating the conflict in Lebanon, where Israel is dead set on annihilating another longtime adversary, Hezbollah.
Netanyahu, however, appears to be resisting US entreaties to ease up on Hezbollah, one of the remaining militia forces that have been waging a proxy war against Israel on Iran’s behalf.
Netanyahu’s insistence to fight on in Lebanon could have triggered Trump’s latest rant. But even before that, the signs of strain were beginning to show.
Last year, Trump negotiated a maritime ceasefire with Houthi rebels in Yemen to halt attacks on US warships, without notifying Israel. Netanyahu felt left out, more so after the White House did not react to a Yemeni missile attack on central Israel.
The rift was most evident during negotiations for a long-term plan for Palestinian territories. Trump bypassed Israel, sending mediators to negotiate directly with Hamas. In retaliation, Netanyahu stepped up military operations in Gaza, sabotaging postwar reconstruction efforts for the enclave.
Despite the challenges, both Trump and Netanyahu are left with no choice but to keep their partnership, however, tenuous, alive. Because if it fractures, it could trigger a seismic shift in the Middle East’s geopolitical landscape that neither partner could survive.
