Trump and Netanyahu may take a victory lap on Iran, but the Gaza war looms over their meeting
'The optics will be very positive,' said Michael Oren, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington. 'But behind the victory lap are going to be some very serious questions.'
Before departing for Washington on Sunday, Netanyahu praised the cooperation with the U.S. for bringing a 'huge victory over our shared enemy.' He struck a positive note on a ceasefire for Gaza, saying he was working 'to achieve the deal under discussion, on the terms we agreed to.'
'I think that the discussion with President Trump can certainly help advance that result, which all of us hope for,' Netanyahu said.
'It changes from day to day'
Israel and Hamas appear to be inching toward a new ceasefire agreement that would bring about a 60-day pause in the fighting, send aid flooding into Gaza and free at least some of the remaining 50 hostages held in the territory.
Advertisement
But a perennial sticking point is whether the ceasefire will end the war altogether. Hamas has said it is willing to free all the hostages in exchange for an end to the war and a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Netanyahu says the war will end once Hamas surrenders, disarms and goes into exile — something it refuses to do.
Trump has made it clear that he wants to be known as a peacemaker. He has repeatedly trumpeted recent peace deals that his administration facilitated between India and Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, and Israel and Iran, and for years has made little secret of the fact that he covets a Nobel Peace Prize.
He has been pressuring Israel and Hamas to wrap up their own conflict, which has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, ravaged Gaza, deepened Israel's international isolation and made any resolution to the broader conflict between Israel and the Palestinians more distant than ever.
But the precise details of the deal, and whether it can lead to an end to the war, are still in flux. In the days before Netanyahu's visit, Trump seemed to downplay the chances for a breakthrough.
Asked on Friday how confident he was a ceasefire deal would come together, Trump told reporters: 'I'm very optimistic — but you know, look, it changes from day to day.'
On Sunday evening, he seemed to narrow his expectation, telling reporters that he thought an agreement related to the remaining hostages would be reached in the coming week.
Trump and Netanyahu are more in sync than ever
Those mood swings also have embodied Trump's relationship with Netanyahu.
After Trump's decision to get involved in Israel's war in Iran with strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, the two leaders are more in sync than ever. But that's not always been the case.
Advertisement
As recently as Netanyahu's last visit to Washington in April, the tone was markedly different.
Trump used the photo-op with Netanyahu to announce that the U.S. was entering into negotiations with Iran over its nuclear deal — appearing to catch the Israeli leader off guard and at the time, slamming the brakes on any Israeli military plan.
He also praised Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a fierce critic of Israel's, in front of Netanyahu, and the two made no apparent progress on a trade deal at the height of Trump's tariff expansion.
Trump, whose policies have largely aligned with Israel's own priorities, pledged last week to be 'very firm' with Netanyahu on ending the war, without saying what that would entail. Pressure by Trump has worked on Netanyahu in the past, with a ceasefire deal having been reached right as the president was taking office again.
Netanyahu has to balance the demands of his American ally with the far-right parties in his governing coalition who hold the key to his political survival and oppose ending the war.
But given the strong U.S. support in Israel's war against Iran, highlighted by joint airstrikes on a fortified underground Iranian nuclear site, Netanyahu may have a tough time saying no.
On Sunday evening, Trump said one of the matters he expected to discuss with Netanyahu 'is probably a permanent deal with Iran.'
Trump also may expect something in return for his recent calls for Netanyahu's corruption trial to be canceled — a significant interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state.
Advertisement
'Trump thinks that Netanyahu owes him,' said Eytan Gilboa, an expert on U.S.-Israel affairs at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv. 'And if Trump thinks that he needs to end the war In Gaza, then that is what he will need to do.'
Trump's regional vision
The two men will likely discuss the ceasefire with Iran and how to respond to any perceived violations.
But beyond Iran is Trump's grand vision for a new Middle East, where he hopes that additional countries will join the Abraham Accords, a series of agreements normalizing relations between Arab countries and Israel brokered during Trump's first term.
Netanyahu and Trump are likely to discuss how to bring Syria into the fold. The country, a longtime enemy of Israel's, has new leadership after the fall of President Bashar Assad, and experts say conditions might be ripe for some kind of nonbelligerency agreement.
But Trump's ultimate goal is to include regional powerhouse Saudi Arabia.
The Saudis, whose clout could open the door for other Arab or Muslim countries to join, have expressed interest in normalizing ties with Israel but only if it is accompanied by serious steps toward resolving Israel's conflict with the Palestinians. For starters, that would seem to require action in Gaza.
'The most important thing (for Trump) is to end the war in Gaza,' Gilboa said. 'That is the key to all the regional peace in the Middle East.'
Price reported from Washington.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
43 minutes ago
Supreme Court's expansive view of presidential power is 'solidly' pro-Trump: ANALYSIS
President Donald Trump may not have a perfect rubber stamp in the U.S. Supreme Court, but he is finding little willingness by the six-justice conservative majority to stand in his way. As the justices begin the traditional summer recess, the sweeping impact of their judgments from the recently concluded term -- in 56 cases argued and more than 100 matters from the emergency docket -- is coming into focus for the administration and the country. Despite the nation's narrow political divide, the court delivered rulings disproportionately advantageous to interests of the Republican political establishment in power. "Time and again, the Supreme Court came down on one side, and solidly so -- on the very conservative side," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar and dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. Most notably, the court imposed dramatic new limits on the ability of federal judges to check presidential power, coming one year after it established sweeping, presumptive immunity for presidents engaged in "official acts." "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies," explained Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her historic opinion allowing Trump to move forward with plans to end birthright citizenship, which has been the law of the land for more than a century. In 14 other emergency appeals Trump brought to the high court, the justices granted his request -- at least in part -- on 12 occasions. The conservative majority gave the green light to the Trump administration's mass layoffs of federal workers, the removal of openly transgender service members from the U.S. military, deportation of noncitizens to third countries with little due process, and access for DOGE staffers to Americans' most sensitive information held by the Social Security Administration. The court did narrowly block Trump's request to continue a freeze of $2 billion in foreign aid money owed to nonprofit groups for services rendered and denied a bid to dismiss the legal case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland migrant and alleged gang member whom the administration deported to El Salvador in violation of a court order, and other alleged Venezuelan criminals. The successive decisions have increasingly incensed the court's liberals. "Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote bluntly Thursday in a dissent from the court's decision clearing the way for the government to send eight migrants to South Sudan. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in extraordinarily stark and impassioned language in dissent in the birthright citizenship case, accused her conservative colleagues of creating an "existential threat to the rule of law" by frequently overriding lower court judges. "This Court's complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise," she wrote. Many legal scholars don't share Jackson's ominous view, including several critical of Trump. "I'm pretty confident that within a matter of weeks … there's going to be basically nationwide coverage of declarations or injunctions making clear that the birthright citizenship contention of the government is just absolutely absurd, insane, and unlawful," said George Conway III, a prominent conservative lawyer who now leads a coalition of attorneys opposed to actions of the Trump administration. As for a broader fear about the erosion of judicial authority, Conway suggested fixation on the court system as a check on the president might be misplaced. "We can't expect the courts to save us. Even if every district judge in the country and every appellate court in the country, and every justice … on the Supreme Court agrees that this administration is violating the law, left and right," Conway said. "They can't save us. The people have to save themselves here." Still, the Supreme Court's expansive view of presidential power is giving Trump significant leeway -- with potentially more to come headed into the summer. The justices will soon decide whether to roll back a temporary nationwide injunction currently barring the Trump administration from moving forward with large-scale reductions of the federal workforce across 19 agencies and offices. They are also expected to weigh in on whether to let the president move forward with elimination of most employees at the Department of Education in an effort to dismantle the agency while litigation over its future continues in federal court. Many veteran court watchers have decried a lack of explanation from the justices for its decisions in these consequential cases. "This court not only militantly refuses to talk about the effect of their decisions, they kind of gaslight us into pretending that the effects of their decision won't be what they are," said Sherrilyn Ifill, Howard University law professor and former director of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Chief Justice John Roberts -- who was the justice most often in the majority last term at 95% of the time -- was the first member of the court to speak out publicly after the flurry of controversial decisions. In rare televised remarks at a federal judicial conference in North Carolina, Roberts confronted what he called "some sharp adjectives" directed at the court amidst a wave of critical public opinion. "The idea that we're responsible for whatever somebody is angry about -- it just doesn't make any sense, and it's very dangerous," Roberts said of the critics. "What they're angry about or upset about is probably not that you applied the principle … It's that they lost whatever they were looking for." A judge's role, Roberts said, is to "interpret the law to the best of our ability," not to write the laws.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
To new and struggling teachers: Don't give up. America's kids need you.
If I could talk to my younger self, I'd tell him about the thousands of students who were going to need him by the time they reached high school ‒ and why I'm glad I stayed. I began teaching in the midst of crisis ‒ a crack epidemic, gang violence, racial strife and police conduct that led to civil unrest. Now, at the close of my 34th year in the classroom, I find that my students, my colleagues and me in crisis again ‒ kids and their families in fear for their freedom as a president, unrestrained by Congress or the Supreme Court, wages war on immigration, much of it on the streets of our Los Angeles, against the Latino community. Those who don't get abducted on the streets by masked immigration agents still face an uncertain future with the recent Supreme Court decision not to reject President Donald Trump's executive order revoking automatic birthright citizenship for all. Trump's order is not retroactive ‒ not for now ‒ but the cruelties we have seen on our streets make it difficult to believe that anything is off the table. I keep asking myself ‒ as do so many educators and other Americans ‒ how things got to this point? A dysfunctional nation, a dysfunctional education system It is a complicated question with complicated answers, but for much of my teaching career, I have worried about the way our schools treat kids: Demanding compliance over excellence. I am afraid that we have raised too many Americans willing to vote for and bend to authoritarian-leaning leaders. And now here we are, with a president virulently expanding his power, coercing and silencing opposition, and militarizing the streets of our city. Much other dysfunction also persists in our education system, and it hurts our kids as much as ever. Politics, profiteering, narrow mindedness and laziness are a big part of the collective incompetence that many of us struggle against every day in classrooms across this country. We ought to keep demanding ‒ or pleading for ‒ systemic change and a greater investment of money and imagination in our schools, even at a time when the federal government seems intent on dismantling public education. For years now, I have been critiquing and complaining, here at USA TODAY and elsewhere, about the systemic rot in our public schools. Whatever the small impact of my words, I know that I've accomplished far more through the work of teaching and through the help I've been able to give new and struggling teachers. Opinion: LA isn't burning. ICE has terrorized many into an ominous silence. For the sake of the next generation of kids, we cannot wait for systemic change. For the sake of those kids, we have to find ways to be the effective and inspiring teachers our kids need and deserve. We have to keep pushing for change in the governance and priorities of our schools; change in the way that teachers are prepared, supported and compensated; and, in the meantime, rise as much as possible above everything that undermines us, that makes our job sometimes seem impossible, and that discourages so many young, idealistic, passionate educators. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. To frustrated new teachers, I was once like you Many new teachers don't last five years, and in many places it is not uncommon for demoralized new teachers to quit midsemester or even midday. I don't blame those frustrated young educators. I almost didn't make it past my first semester, and now I try to encourage as many struggling teachers as I can to believe in their students and themselves. Opinion: As a teacher, Supreme Court siding with parents' religious freedom concerns me Because when you see countless students grow up and some overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles. When you hear their words of appreciation for your part in it. When you find yourself teaching multiple branches and generations of once distressed and now flourishing families. When you see students transform from selfishness or misery or self-destructiveness to become productive adults doing their small part to improve their community and the world and help others do the same ‒ then you know it was worth it. The problem is that too many educators are defeated before they can even imagine such successes, and we don't do enough to affirm the small successes that they themselves might not even recognize. If some tech innovator could create a time machine so I could go talk to my younger self as a discouraged new teacher, I would tell that frazzled young educator about the thousands of children who were going to need him by the time they reached high school ‒ and how glad I've been to be there for them, how sad that it won't last forever, and how much I hope to pass on what the students have taught me over the years. An army of dedicated, patient and talented educators may be the only hope for this new generation. In that regard, there is no greater gift to the world than making the sacrifices, braving the indignities, and enduring the uncertainties and failures to become a really good teacher. Which is why I've written "A Lasting Impact in the Classroom and Beyond: Wisdom and Advice for Brave Teachers." I did so on behalf of our kids, now and in the future, and for those courageous souls who want to help them all to find their brilliance, their voices, their idealism and their place in this crazy world. Perhaps they can help to steer us away from the dystopian nightmare we seem to be careening toward. Larry Strauss, a high school English teacher in South Los Angeles since 1992, is also the author of 'Students First and Other Lies: Straight Talk From a Veteran Teacher.' You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
How the lone farmer running a state government is navigating Trump's turbulent policies
Those relationships are all the more important. Nebraska agriculture runs our economy. There's other things that are really important, too. Manufacturing. Our Air Force base is off the charts. And we have the most significant insurance industry in the United States. We've got an incredibly strong economy, but agriculture drives it. We feed the world from Nebraska agriculture and save the planet, and we raise way more than we can consume in the United States and in Nebraska. So international trade is gigantic, and those relationships are important. Everybody we do business [with] understands that we have to have fair, long-term relationships. I've been a big advocate my whole life that we've been messing up with how we do trade. It has to be fair. It's got to be free. And it's got to be balanced. So when the country is out of whack with trade deficits that we're being severely taken advantage of, it hurts us in a few spots. We're getting dinged right now a little bit [in the agriculture sector], but we're in it for the long haul. Nebraska, farmers and ranchers. We're not publicly traded companies. We're not looking for a return next quarter. We're in it for the next generations. What President Trump's doing, I'm 100 percent with him. The reconciliation bill includes cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which benefits 155,000 Nebraskans, 8 percent of the population. What do you think about the state potentially taking up that burden? Here's what's really, really important to understand. Number one, the people in Nebraska, we've got each other's backs. We step up and take care of people and solve problems. If the federal government is going to have mandates on us and not [support them] economically, we're going to have conversations. If we have to pay for it, we're going to run it our way. It's simple, we're going to take care of the vulnerable Nebraskans. But again, if the federal government has a program that we have to pay for, we're going to do it the Nebraska way, not the federal government's way. 'The First Furrow' by artist James Penney hangs in a vestibule of the Nebraska State Capitol. | Shia Kapos/POLITICO What is the Nebraska way? The Nebraska way is education and innovation, not regulation. People aren't buying pop and candy, they're getting the best value to feed their family. A bill that you supported during the legislative session would restrict business dealings with foreign adversaries. Would that impact your company doing business with Smithfield Foods, which is owned by a Chinese company?
