Never before has there been such a visit. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to spend just 30 hours in the US, with the centerpiece of the brief trip being a meeting with President Donald Trump. The Iranian issue will, of course, take center stage in their talks.
Netanyahu is joined by his military secretary and the incoming head of the Mossad, Roman Gofman. In an unusual move, a media figure who had boarded the plane and set up his equipment was removed at the instruction of security officials accompanying the prime minister. The individual is officially classified as a journalist but in practice disseminates pro-Russian and pro-Chinese messaging, and suspicions regarding him have circulated for some time. The Shin Bet security agency said the decision was made to reduce risks to the prime minister and to sensitive information in his vicinity.
True to what associates describe as his "Herzlian" approach of persuading foreign leaders through the prism of their own interests, Netanyahu is expected to outline what Israel sees as the wrong contours of any potential US-Iran agreement. "I will present to the president our views regarding the principles that must underpin any negotiations," Netanyahu said before takeoff. "They are important not only for Israel, but for anyone in the world who seeks peace and security in the Middle East."
In other words, rather than arguing that certain concessions reportedly being considered in Washington would harm Israel, Netanyahu is expected to focus on why such concessions would be bad for the US.
Are such concessions in fact on the table? And does Trump need convincing about the nature of the Islamic Republic of Iran? According to an Israeli diplomatic source who spoke to Israel Hayom, the answer is no. This is not a case of an American "collapse of positions," the source said, but rather a presentation of Israeli principles.
In recent days, the White House and senior administration officials have wrapped their intentions in heavy ambiguity. On one hand, the US has significantly reinforced its forces in and around the Persian Gulf. On the other, it has made no public statement outlining red lines for a possible agreement, whose prospects appear slim. Nor have there been authoritative briefings clarifying where Trump stands.
The only consistent message coming from third parties within the administration is that "nothing has changed." US Ambassador Mike Huckabee, who joined the flight, put it this way: "As far as I know, there are no significant gaps between Israel and the US regarding the demands from Iran."
Taken together, and in the absence of solid information, the signs suggest that Netanyahu is reiterating positions already well known in Washington, perhaps reinforcing an already hawkish stance. Trump has a long and consistent record of hard-line positions toward Iran. As a presidential candidate he opposed the 2015 nuclear deal brokered under former president Barack Obama, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and he withdrew from it after taking office. He ordered the killing of Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force. He imposed crippling sanctions on Tehran during his first term and renewed them in his second.
Above all, he backed Operation Rising Lion and later concluded it with Operation Midnight Hammer, deploying the well-known B-2 bombers.
An "Obama scenario" is unlikely
True, there have been tactical retreats. Trump did not respond militarily to the 2020 attack on Saudi oil facilities attributed to Iran. More recently, he halted a planned strike on the regime, reportedly in part at Israel's request. Geopolitics is rarely linear, and tactical shifts do not necessarily signal strategic reversals.
The Iranian regime has also reportedly attempted to assassinate Trump personally. There is little doubt, Israeli officials say, that the president has not forgotten that.
For that reason, the likelihood of Trump signing what Israelis would view as a humiliating agreement, similar to or worse than the Obama-era deal, appears remote. Absent an agreement, a US military strike on Iran is seen by some in Jerusalem as a question not of if but when. Such a move would involve complex operational considerations and a comprehensive plan running from A to Z, potentially culminating in regime change. If the US were to deploy its full force and the regime were to survive, the consequences would reverberate far beyond Iran.
Gaza also on the agenda
At the last minute, Netanyahu decided to raise another issue with Trump: the situation in the Gaza Strip. For that purpose, entrepreneur Michael Eisenberg was flown in. Eisenberg previously conceived and operated the humanitarian fund for Gaza, which Israeli officials credit with helping sever ties between the Hamas terrorist organization and the local population.
In this context, Netanyahu and Trump are expected to discuss how to overcome what Israeli officials describe as the most significant obstacle in Gaza: the disarmament of Hamas.
Sources familiar with the details told Israel Hayom that the so-called technocratic government in Gaza is functioning effectively and intends to assert its authority. Still, the central question is implementation. Most agree that the chances of achieving demilitarization without Israeli military action are low.
"But we already did the unimaginable by securing the release of all the hostages," one of the sources said. "Maybe here, too, we will succeed against all odds."
