Newsweek published an editorial on June 8, 2026, entitled, “The Alliance Trap Is Swallowing Donald Trump.” The article follows up on a previous editorial, warning Trump to avoid “losing control” over Israel, which was “increasingly aggressive” as an actor. This argument stands on a fallacy, that the interests of the United States and Israel in the Middle East don’t align.
President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hold a joint press conference announcing the U.S. peace plan for Gaza, Monday, September 29, 2025, in the State Dining Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian)
Certainly, there are certain areas of divergence, such as their postures towards Russia and China. But concerning Iran and its proxies, state interests substantially overlap.
For decades, both have stated that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons; that it should curb its missile and drone program; and that it should end its support for terrorism. Both the United States and Israel have also expressed concerns over Iran’s violation of human rights and its chokehold over the Strait of Hormuz, though the United States has been more vocal on these two points.
So what meaningful difference exists, then?
The recent exchange between Iran and Israel inspired the Newsweek piece. The article manufactures this divergence primarily by drawing dubious conclusions from the complexity of a conflict that includes four primary belligerents: the United States, Israel, Iran, and Hezbollah. The editors fairly mention that Israel is acting in self-defense after attacks by Hezbollah, adding, “A country under missile fire cannot be expected to outsource every military decision to Washington’s negotiating timetable. Israeli leaders must answer to their own population before anyone else.”
The problem they cite is that “Trump wanted [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu to hold off because the administration believed it was close to a deal with Iran.”
While the United States and Israel agree on the fundamental objectives, their analyses of how to get there are different.
Common sense dictates that neighboring states, which must contend with and interact with each other on a much more regular and intimate basis, will typically have a better understanding of each other than a state thousands of miles away. Israel’s deep penetration of Iran only further supports this point.
The U.S. intelligence community, especially in its current state with limited reliance on human sources and spies, does not have a good understanding of U.S. adversaries. During the Cold War, for example, the United States habitually misunderstood Soviet capabilities and intentions. U.S. intelligence missed Soviet advancements on developing an atomic bomb in the 1940s; misunderstood its space program; underestimated its military capabilities; and overestimated its economic prowess. More recently, hindsight has demonstrated that the best assessment of Russian intentions before the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine came from NATO’s eastern members.
U.S. allies and partners like Israel more often pull the United States out of regional traps, as opposed to ensnaring it. Consider a related example: when Israel tipped off the United States on Syria’s nuclear program. Due to domestic political concerns, the Bush administration decided to take the case to the United Nations. This was the same path that the United States had pursued concerning North Korea’s nuclear program, only for North Korea to become a nuclear-armed state. It risked the same outcome as Syria. Israel secretly attacked the Syrian reactor, resolving the problem and preventing a potential bad outcome for the United States.
Back to Iran, just because the Trump administration is married to the idea of negotiations does not mean that negotiations are in its own interests. The administration has told journalists that a deal was imminent countless times over the past several weeks. The lack of results and Iran’s increasingly boastful rhetoric suggest that Iran is playing the United States.
It is also important to mention that no administration is ever entirely concerned with national interest. Domestic political concerns are always a major factor in setting foreign policy, if not the driving force. Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge worked to keep the United States out of the League of Nations over rivalry with President Woodrow Wilson, not national interest. According to his adviser Ben Rhodes, President Barack Obama asked for Congressional authorization to attack Syria, resulting in inaction, to weaken his Republican opponents in Congress.
The Trump administration’s desire for diplomatic negotiations could seem prudent, due to faulty analysis, or could be driven by domestic politics. Regardless, an administration’s actions or objectives do not necessarily equate to national interests.
So, is Israel trapping the United States, or is it pulling America out of the ditch, given its superior understanding of Iran and the luxury of not being shackled by domestic U.S. politics?
The article’s argument fails on two more points.
First, it suggests that Israel ignored Trump’s request not to retaliate. This suggests a binary of Israeli options of striking or not. But a spectrum is a better metaphor.
Israeli attacks were more muted than expected. Israel Hayom reports that Trump approved of a moderated Israeli response. Newsweek concedes this much, writing, “It is not clear if Israel’s strikes were coordinated with the U.S. or unilateral.” This certainly would not be the first time that Trump said one thing in public while secretly coordinating with Netanyahu to do the opposite. The two cooperated to mislead Iran before the Twelve-Day War, too.
Second, the United States has always asserted control over the actions of its partners, sometimes unwisely. The Trump administration prevented Israel from retaliating against Iranian fire after entering into a ceasefire agreement at the end of the Twelve-Day War. The Biden administration forced a moderate posture on Ukraine and Israel in prosecuting their wars, arguably prolonging both as a result by not allowing them to bring their full powers to crush their enemies.
Good journalists instinctively challenge politicians. In this case, they would, for good reasons, push back against the president’s objective to de-escalate the conflict before attaining a conclusive resolution.
The Newsweek editorial takes a different path, observing, “Trump wants enough regional quiet to land a deal with Tehran and cement himself as the peacemaker president,” and proceeding to give recommendations to the president. The editors err here by confusing themselves as advisers to the president, as opposed to critics.