Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has dismissed claims that he manipulated former U.S. President Donald Trump into initiating a regime-change war against Iran, asserting that no one can dictate Trump’s decisions. However, the evolving situation in the Middle East is now testing the limits of that assertion, particularly as the two leaders navigate the aftermath of recent military action and the prospects for a lasting peace agreement.

In February, Netanyahu and David Barnea, the head of Mossad, reportedly delivered a presentation to Trump in the White House situation room advocating for a full-scale military strike aimed at significantly degrading Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities and precipitating regime change. According to U.S. media reports, Trump responded positively to the outline of the operation, which included expectations that the initial assault would weaken the Iranian regime enough to prevent it from imposing a blockade on the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.

While Trump’s advisers generally agreed that dismantling parts of Iran’s military infrastructure was achievable, they expressed strong skepticism about the feasibility of forcing regime change. CIA Director John Ratcliffe reportedly described regime-change plans as “farcical,” though Trump appeared prepared to accept partial success in military objectives over the campaign's complete goals.

The weeks following the conflict have highlighted potential strains in the U.S.-Israel relationship. Trump, eager to claim a foreign policy victory, is poised to push for a formal ceasefire agreement he can present as a significant achievement. Conversely, Netanyahu is determined that any settlement must safeguard Israeli security interests, especially concerning Iran’s support for Hezbollah and other militias, as well as its efforts to rebuild missile and nuclear programs.

There is speculation that if the Iranian regime makes minimal concessions or if public opinion casts Trump as having retreated prematurely, tensions could rise between the two leaders. Trump has occasionally criticized Netanyahu in private, including over perceived disloyalty during the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and may seek to place blame on the Israeli leader should the conflict’s outcomes disappoint. Such blame could mark a notable shift in the enduring U.S.-Israel alliance.

Despite shared aims, the divergent political landscapes in the United States and Israel complicate the relationship. While Israelis broadly supported the military campaign, American public opinion has been more divided. This divide is reflected in growing calls within the U.S. Democratic Party to distance themselves from pro-Israel lobbying groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Looking ahead, Netanyahu appears to accept that efforts to curb Iran’s military power may need to be renewed periodically, a strategy he has described as “mowing the grass.” Trump, meanwhile, is likely to continue asserting that Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been effectively “obliterated,” despite warnings from analysts that Iran’s capabilities are far from eliminated.

The ultimate impact of the conflict and negotiations on U.S.-Israel ties remains uncertain. The recent hostilities have underscored fault lines within both countries and raised questions about the future dynamics of their alliance amid shifting political and strategic priorities.