Israeli Defense Forces struck Beirut for a second time on Sunday, and within hours a diplomat involved in U.S.-Iran negotiations warned that the strikes were jeopardizing a deal President Trump had just announced was imminent. Now a growing unease inside the Israeli government has spilled into public view: the fear that Trump, frustrated with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, could shift course on Israel altogether.
The collision between Israel's military operations and Trump's diplomatic push toward Tehran has produced one of the sharpest visible cracks in the U.S.-Israel relationship since Trump returned to office. And the friction is not abstract. Trump told Axios that Netanyahu had "no f---ing judgment." He reportedly called the prime minister "crazy" over an earlier strike on Beirut during a phone call this month.
That is not the language of a routine policy disagreement. It is the sound of a president who feels undermined, and a prime minister who may have miscalculated how much latitude he actually has.
On June 11, Trump announced that a new U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding was expected to be signed imminently. The Israeli prime minister's office responded almost immediately with a statement declaring that Jerusalem "is not a party to the memorandum of understanding" between Washington and Tehran.
The next day, June 12, Netanyahu went further. Iran, he said, was "working to destroy the Jewish state." He added that he had dedicated his life to "preventing them from doing so."
Then came the Sunday strikes on Beirut, the second round of Israeli military action there, even after U.S. warnings that any strikes would derail a breakthrough with Tehran. A diplomat involved in the talks told Fox News Chief Foreign Correspondent Trey Yingst that the strikes were "a clear attempt by Israel to sabotage the president's deal and drag the United States back into war."
That framing, from a diplomat close to the negotiations, not from Tehran, shows how deeply the Israeli strikes have cut into the diplomatic process Trump is pursuing. A senior Israeli official, meanwhile, offered a different justification: Hezbollah attacks had targeted Israeli civilians for the previous three days as Israel prepared for Iranian retaliation.
Both claims cannot be the whole story. But the gap between them is where the real danger lies, for Israel, for the deal, and for the broader U.S. posture in the Middle East.
Natan Sachs, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and Israeli foreign policy expert, described what he called "absolutely this fear in the Israeli government", a fear he characterized as "a rational and healthy fear", that Trump could turn on Israel.
"Now there is a sense in Israel that Trump may be growing weary of Netanyahu and the Israelis, and many others believe that if he got sick and tired of him, he could break norms in other directions and flip on Israel."
Sachs laid out the paradox Netanyahu faces. Trump was initially a massive opportunity for Israel precisely because he was willing to break the mold. But that same willingness to break norms cuts both ways.
"Trump was a huge opportunity for Netanyahu because he was willing to break the mold on anything, but Israel has made a potentially strategic, historic mistake in putting all its eggs in one basket."
That basket now looks less secure than it did six months ago, when a photo caption from Dec. 29, 2025, showed Trump welcoming Netanyahu to Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida. The warmth of that meeting has given way to expletives and public rebukes.
Sachs drew a sharp contrast between the two men's temperaments and strategic instincts, a contrast that matters because it helps explain why the relationship is fraying under operational pressure.
"Netanyahu is an erudite, well-educated, patient, highly suspicious and extremely pessimistic man by nature. His self-image is more, 'I have thought everything through in ways you could not, because I'm smarter than you.'"
Trump, by contrast, wants quick wins. And the quick win in the Middle East has not materialized.
"Netanyahu was always prepared for the long haul. And the long haul is not four months; the long haul is years. Trump likes quick wins. Once the quick win did not materialize, and it did not, now you have a whole new set of problems."
The mismatch goes deeper than pace. Sachs noted that while Trump and Netanyahu broadly shared goals, establishing a post-Hamas future for Gaza, eliminating Hezbollah's armed presence in Lebanon, and constraining Iran, sharing a wish list is not the same as sharing a strategy.
"Having that wish list is not the same as having a strategic goal. They haven't both committed to them as strategic goals that dictate concerted action going forward."
In other words, they agree on the destination but not on the route, the timeline, or the price they are willing to pay. That kind of alignment is fragile. And fragile alignments break under the weight of events, like strikes on Beirut in the middle of delicate negotiations.
Sachs also pointed to something more personal. Netanyahu, he said, "is very suspicious of everyone around him, and he's been surrounded by this same coterie of individuals for decades." That suspicion shapes how Netanyahu processes risk and how he manages relationships with allies, including the most powerful one.
The two leaders even consume information differently. Sachs observed that you cannot imagine Netanyahu spending hours on social media the way Trump does, and it is equally hard to picture Trump spending hours reading books, which Netanyahu likes to portray himself as doing.
These are not trivial differences. They shape how each man reads a situation, what signals he trusts, and how fast he moves. Netanyahu, Sachs said, "also believes you live with a problem, you manage it, and you kick the can down the road. Trump is the opposite."
That fundamental divergence, between a leader who manages problems indefinitely and a leader who demands resolution now, is the fault line running beneath every aspect of the current crisis.
The exact terms of the proposed U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding remain unclear. Fox News reported that discussions proceeded through Pakistani mediation and included proposed verification mechanisms. The military context is also significant: since Feb. 28, Operation Epic Fury and Roaring Lion has applied pressure on Iran, including U.S. strikes and a naval blockade.
But Sachs suggested that Trump's conception of what a deal would include is narrower than what Israel wants. Trump's preference, Sachs said, "seemed far from pursuing a much broader campaign aimed at achieving the goals that Israel prefers, and he also has a much narrower conception of what a deal would be."
For Netanyahu, any agreement that leaves Iran's nuclear infrastructure intact or fails to address its proxy networks, Hezbollah chief among them, is not a deal worth having. For Trump, a signed memorandum of understanding with Tehran would be a visible diplomatic achievement, the kind of quick win he prizes.
The tension is obvious. And Israel's Sunday strikes in Beirut look, from Washington's vantage point, like a deliberate attempt to blow up the diplomatic track before it can produce results.
Sachs framed the asymmetry bluntly. The United States can walk away from the Middle East and focus elsewhere. Israel cannot.
"The U.S. may turn away and be uninterested; Israel simply does not think it has that privilege."
That is the core of Israel's dilemma. It needs American support more than America needs Israeli cooperation on Iran. And if Netanyahu's military actions continue to undercut Trump's diplomatic objectives, the cost of that dependency could become painfully clear.
Trump condemned Israel's strikes in a post on Truth Social. He has publicly criticized Netanyahu in terms no modern American president has used toward an Israeli prime minister. The relationship is not broken, but it is under more strain than at any point since Trump took office.
Several important facts remain unknown. The full terms of the proposed U.S.-Iran memorandum have not been disclosed. Casualties and damage from the Sunday strikes in Beirut have not been confirmed. The specific Hezbollah attacks that Israel cited as justification for the strikes have not been detailed publicly. And the identity and official role of the diplomat who accused Israel of sabotage have not been revealed.
What is known is enough to see the shape of the problem. Netanyahu is operating on a timeline measured in years, pursuing goals that require sustained military pressure. Trump is operating on a timeline measured in weeks, pursuing a diplomatic outcome that requires restraint from all parties, including Israel.
Those two timelines cannot coexist indefinitely. Something has to give.
When your most important ally tells you publicly that you have no judgment, the prudent move is to listen, not to launch another round of strikes the next morning. Strategic patience is supposed to be Netanyahu's specialty. He may want to start using it.
