It is striking how rapidly and unexpectedly the relationship between the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has transformed. Not long ago, the two leaders were exchanging praise, applauding one another, speaking of mutual achievements and the depth of the strategic relationship between their countries. Today, however, the relationship has entered what can only be described as a political “blame game,” which began through carefully orchestrated media leaks following the ceasefire decision and has now escalated to public statements by senior officials on both sides, including the explicit remarks of U.S. Vice President J. D. Vance and comments from Israeli ministers and officials within Netanyahu’s government.

 

What happened to turn the situation upside down? How far can the current disagreement go, and where might it lead? These questions have become even more pressing after President Trump shared on his platform an article originally published by Just the News, discussing the administration’s position regarding Israel’s upcoming elections and the various political scenarios under consideration. Such discussions could significantly affect Netanyahu’s electoral prospects. They also intersect with Trump’s recent and surprising remarks suggesting the possibility that Netanyahu might not run in the next election—comments that reportedly caught even members of the Likud party off guard, prompting them to reaffirm that Netanyahu remains the party’s candidate.

 

In essence, someone must pay the price for what is increasingly viewed as the reckless decision to launch the war against Iran. The strategy failed to achieve its central objectives; at the very least, it did not succeed in bringing down the Iranian regime or eliminating its leadership. The question now is which of the two partners will emerge politically unscathed.

 

Trump chose to sign the memorandum of understanding and avoid a prolonged war of attrition. He may also feel that he was misled by Netanyahu’s assessments and those of the Israeli intelligence establishment, particularly regarding the apparent ease with which the Iranian regime could supposedly be destabilized. Trump’s priority now is to extricate himself from the current crisis and protect Republican prospects in the upcoming midterm elections. This concern has grown more acute as divisions emerged within the MAGA movement—the core pillar of his political support—among Republicans and conservative voters.

 

On the other side, Netanyahu and the Israeli right perceive the abrupt end of the war, the inclusion of southern Lebanon in the arrangements, the release of Iranian funds, and the strategic gains achieved by Iran despite its considerable military and economic losses as nothing short of a political defeat for Israel. They also view it as an unprecedented instance of Washington imposing regional policy decisions on Israel. Both Netanyahu’s allies and his opponents increasingly agree that this is the first time American influence has penetrated so deeply into Israeli decision-making. For Netanyahu personally, the current historical moment may therefore be among the most challenging of his political career.

 

It is true that Netanyahu and his defense minister reluctantly accepted the ceasefire arrangement in southern Lebanon under intense American pressure. Yet a full withdrawal from southern Lebanon would amount, from Netanyahu’s perspective, to political suicide. He is unlikely to agree to such a move unless he receives a substantial political reward capable of compensating for these losses and preserving the cohesion of his right-wing coalition on the eve of the elections.

 

The most vulnerable arena in this entire equation may well be the Palestinian issue—namely the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza. This could represent the only significant concession Trump is able to offer in order to achieve two objectives simultaneously: first, to escape the current regional impasse and ensure the success of the memorandum of understanding as a pathway toward broader regional negotiations; and second, to maintain the loyalty of his Christian Zionist constituency, a crucial component of Republican electoral strength. Without such reassurance, this constituency could turn against him under the influence of the current discourse emanating from the Israeli right.

 

The Palestinian question may therefore be the key that restores cordial relations between the two allies and helps both reduce the political costs and domestic crises that could arise if the current disagreement deepens further. Trump and Netanyahu continue to rely on conservative religious-right constituencies, and both face crucial and potentially historic elections. For that reason, Arab policymakers must read this equation carefully. Iran may have succeeded in securing a favorable arrangement domestically, and Americans and Israelis may eventually reconcile their differences. Yet within this broader context, Arabs—and particularly Palestinians—risk emerging as the greatest losers.