Benjamin Netanyahu vs Donald Trump — Who Manipulated Whom?

In the long and crowded history of alliances between Washington and Jerusalem, few relationships have attracted as much fascination as the one between Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump. It was, at least on the surface, a natural pairing: two leaders who thrived on spectacle, who distrusted many of the same institutions, and who understood the modern political stage as a theater in which narrative could be as decisive as policy.

---

---

But beneath the surface of the handshakes, the red-carpet ceremonies, and the gleaming diplomatic announcements, their relationship raised a persistent question among diplomats and political observers: who, exactly, was steering whom?

Netanyahu arrived at the relationship with a résumé that few world leaders could match. By the time Trump entered the Oval Office in 2017, Netanyahu had already spent decades navigating the labyrinth of Israeli politics and American power. He had served as Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations in the 1980s, mastered the rhythms of American television debate, and cultivated relationships across the ideological spectrum in Washington. In Israeli politics, where coalition governments rise and fall with dizzying speed, survival requires a special kind of tactical instinct. Netanyahu possessed it in abundance.

Trump, by contrast, entered office as a political outsider whose instincts had been honed not in government but in business and media. He possessed a powerful sense of branding and a keen understanding of spectacle, but he lacked the dense network of institutional knowledge that career politicians often accumulate over decades.

The result was a relationship that, while publicly warm, operated on two different frequencies. Trump approached foreign policy in a manner that was often personal and transactional. Leaders who praised him, who appeared loyal, or who could deliver dramatic announcements were rewarded with access and attention. Netanyahu understood this dynamic almost immediately.

In meeting after meeting, Netanyahu framed Israeli strategic priorities in ways that resonated with Trump’s worldview. The threat posed by Iran was presented not only as a regional security problem but as a clear and dramatic narrative of good versus evil. Diplomatic initiatives were packaged as historic breakthroughs that could be announced with fanfare. In a presidency that valued the headline as much as the policy, Netanyahu proved an adept narrator.

Several of the most consequential decisions of Trump’s presidency in the Middle East aligned closely with Netanyahu’s long-standing goals. The United States formally recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, reversing decades of diplomatic caution. The American embassy was moved there shortly afterward. Washington withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the international accord designed to limit Iran’s nuclear program—a deal Netanyahu had opposed with extraordinary vigor.

Then came the Abraham Accords, which established diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab governments. The agreements were hailed by the Trump administration as a historic transformation of Middle Eastern diplomacy. Netanyahu embraced them as evidence that Israel could normalize relations with the Arab world without first resolving the Palestinian conflict—an idea that had long been central to his strategic thinking.

To some analysts, the pattern suggested that Netanyahu had skillfully guided the relationship, translating his government’s objectives into terms that appealed to Trump’s instincts. Netanyahu’s deep familiarity with Washington’s political culture, combined with his fluency in English and his comfort before American audiences, gave him advantages that few foreign leaders possessed.

But the notion that Netanyahu simply manipulated Trump tells only part of the story. Trump was not a passive figure in the relationship. The policies he pursued also served his own political purposes. Among evangelical Christians, a crucial segment of his political base, support for Israel is both a religious conviction and a political priority. Trump’s decisions on Jerusalem and Iran were celebrated within that constituency, reinforcing his reputation as the most pro-Israel president in modern American history.

In that sense, the relationship functioned less as a case of manipulation than as a convergence of interests. Each leader saw in the other an opportunity to reinforce his own domestic standing.

Still, the alliance contained an undercurrent of fragility. Trump placed extraordinary emphasis on personal loyalty, a trait that often complicated his relationships with foreign leaders. Netanyahu, for his part, had survived too many political storms to allow any alliance to become purely personal.

---

The tension became visible after the 2020 United States presidential election. When Netanyahu moved quickly to congratulate Joe Biden on his victory, Trump reacted with visible anger, reportedly accusing the Israeli leader of disloyalty. The moment revealed something essential about the relationship: it had always been strategic rather than sentimental.

For Netanyahu, the priority was preserving Israel’s relationship with the United States regardless of who occupied the White House. For Trump, the expectation of personal allegiance ran deeper.

In retrospect, their partnership appears less like a contest of manipulation and more like a carefully managed exchange. Netanyahu brought decades of geopolitical experience and a precise understanding of American political psychology. Trump brought a willingness to overturn diplomatic conventions that previous presidents had treated as immovable.

Each leader, in his own way, used the other.

And in the theater of modern politics—where perception can be as powerful as policy—that may have been the point all along.

---