Published on 6/19/2026
American political and media voices agree that the political future of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is at stake, and that his departure is no longer just an electoral possibility, but rather has become a necessity to open the door to more stable regional settlements, after the agreement between America and Iran revealed the limits of his real influence within Washington.
In this context, two analyzes in Newsweek and The Hill intersect on the basic idea that the war on Iran and the subsequent US-Iranian agreement weakened the narrative upon which Netanyahu built his political career for decades, which is his ability to direct American policy in a way that serves Israeli goals.
Read also
list of 2 itemsend of list
Newsweek believes that President Donald Trump’s agreement with Iran “destroys the central myth of Benjamin Netanyahu,” as, for three decades, he built his image as the only politician capable of “dealing with America.”
Trump and Netanyahu dispute
The magazine notes that Netanyahu warned in his speech before Congress in 2015 that any agreement with Iran “paves its way towards a nuclear bomb,” and he later celebrated Trump’s decision in 2018 to withdraw from the nuclear agreement signed in 2015.
However, according to the magazine, the new memorandum of understanding came in complete contrast to the vision defended by Netanyahu, as “it appears closer to a peace agreement between two equal parties than to conditions imposed on a defeated party.”
The agreement gives Iran several gains, most notably ending the war temporarily and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, while maintaining the stock of enriched uranium within Iranian territory, and limiting the enrichment rate under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency instead of transferring or destroying nuclear materials, as Israel was demanding.
Newsweek notes that the agreement also ignored the issue of Iranian ballistic missiles, which is one of the files that Israel considered a direct threat to its security.
In an indication of the widening gap between the two men, the magazine confirms that the dispute came to light in an unprecedented way, after Trump rebuked Netanyahu over an Israeli raid on Beirut that almost obstructed the agreement, describing Israel as a “very small partner” compared to the United States of America.
Harlan Ullman believes that if Trump is serious about creating a political legacy based on peace, he must work to persuade the Israelis to abandon Netanyahu and choose a new leadership committed to political settlements.
Moderate successor
For his part, writer Harlan Ullman in The Hill goes further, as he believes that achieving lasting peace in the Middle East “requires getting rid of Benjamin Netanyahu and replacing him with a moderate successor” like former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
The writer believes that Netanyahu was the main obstacle to any negotiating path with Iran, accusing him of seeking to “destroy Iran and prevent any negotiations from succeeding.”
According to the article, this path began in early 2026, when Netanyahu sought to persuade Trump to launch a preemptive attack aimed at toppling the Iranian leadership and achieving regime change.
But the results of the war were different, as the writer believes that the current agreement makes it difficult to determine the victorious party, and many even believe that Iran emerged from it stronger.
Ullman believes that if Trump is serious about creating a political legacy based on peace, he must work to persuade the Israelis to abandon Netanyahu and choose a new leadership committed to political settlements.
He believes that this path may open the door to expanding the Abraham Accords to reach broader understandings with Iran, provided that Israel adopts different policies towards the Gaza Strip, Hamas, and Hezbollah.
The two reports conclude that the greatest loss suffered by Netanyahu lies not only in the terms of the US-Iranian agreement, but in the collapse of the image that he promoted for a long time, as recent developments have shown that his influence has always remained dependent on the will of an American president who can influence him, but who cannot control his final decisions.
