Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to Washington between February 10 and 13 for his seventh visit in the past 13 months, amid signs that the close U.S.-Israel alliance is being tested by growing personal and policy friction between Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump, particularly over Iran and the future of Gaza.
Writing for Turkish think-tank Orsam, Özgür Dikmen, stresses that the visit is described as less a routine diplomatic engagement than an effort by both leaders to “mark” and constrain each other as negotiations with Iran and U.S.-backed plans for Gaza move forward.
One of the most discussed images from the trip was Netanyahu’s understated arrival at the White House, where he entered via a side door without a ceremonial welcome or a large press presence. The analysis argues that the absence of a joint press statement after a closed, roughly three-hour meeting pointed to substantive differences—especially on Iran—rather than a relaxed bypassing of protocol.
Israeli Energy and Infrastructure Minister Eli Cohen, portrayed as a key messenger for Netanyahu’s hawkish line, said before the trip that its urgent purpose was to warn Washington against what Israel sees as futile negotiations with Tehran. After the meeting, however, Trump posted a vague statement on Truth Social signaling that diplomacy with Iran was still underway—an outcome the analysis interprets as Netanyahu failing to secure a U.S. shift toward tougher terms.
Iran was framed as the core of Netanyahu’s agenda: preventing any agreement focused narrowly on uranium enrichment while leaving aside Iran’s ballistic missile program and its network of allied militias. The analysis notes that earlier Israeli demands—such as insisting Tehran end all enrichment—were seen as obstacles when Washington and Tehran neared an understanding in 2025, and it suggests that expanding the negotiating scope could again complicate talks.
The visit also highlighted disagreements over Gaza. Trump is preparing for a February 19 leaders’ meeting of a “Gaza Peace Council” in Washington, as U.S. officials push plans for reconstruction and an interim governance framework. The analysis points to recent Israeli strikes in Gaza and moves aimed at pressuring Hamas as steps that could disrupt Trump’s attempt to broaden an international platform around the cease-fire and postwar arrangements.
A central fault line, according to the analysis, is timing and sequencing: Netanyahu is said to demand Hamas’ complete disarmament and a clear Israeli “victory” declaration, while Trump is portrayed as preferring a phased process aligned with his wider peace initiative. The analysis also underscores Netanyahu’s opposition to any future role for the Palestinian Authority in governing Gaza—an option the Trump camp is described as keeping on the table.
Another notable element was Netanyahu’s reported proposal to gradually reduce Israel’s dependence on U.S. military aid. The concept described would shift from the current $3.8 billion annual assistance framework toward a long-term model emphasizing joint development and direct procurement. The analysis suggests the idea could appeal to Trump’s “America First” agenda while allowing Netanyahu to project strategic independence at home, though critics view it as largely election-season rhetoric with significant long-term risks.
Even as political disputes surfaced, defense cooperation continued. Israel’s Defense Ministry announced new successful tests of the jointly developed David’s Sling air defense system, underscoring that security ties remain deep even amid policy clashes.
Netanyahu returned to Jerusalem without an obvious public concession from the White House, while Trump appeared intent on keeping the Iran diplomatic track open and using the upcoming Gaza meeting to apply further pressure on Israel’s next steps.