Lights, Camera, Diplomacy: How Netanyahu’s US Visit Could Spark Change

2024-08-08 06:23:57

When Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu
travels to Washington Sunday, for his third Oval Office meeting since President Donald Trump resumed office, it will be widely described as a “victory lap” – a ceremonial capstone to the recent joint US–Israel airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear sites and the subsequent political leverage achieved at home and abroad.

Netanyahu’s lawyers even cited the
Iran
war as justification for delaying his corruption trial hearings, arguing that foreign policy duties must take precedence, signaling how deeply interwoven security and domestic politics have become.

Trump’s performative support

Meanwhile,
Trump
has turned support into performance – publicly calling for an end to Netanyahu’s judicial proceedings while underscoring unwavering military backing, including a new $510 million arms package to arm Israel with precision guidance kits.

The conflict with Iran provided the critical cohesion: Netanyahu succeeded in persuading Trump to enact US strikes, leveraging Iran’s stalled diplomacy and uranium advancement as justification, even overturning the president’s earlier preference for talks.

These strikes – targeting Iran’s Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan – have delivered symbolic blows to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and fortified the image of strategic interoperability, if not complete eradication of the Islamic Republic’s capabilities, as Israel claimed.

The US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Iran set a political precedent. With Tehran diplomatically isolated and under pressure, Jerusalem gained breathing room to negotiate a 60-day Gaza ceasefire tied to hostage releases, in which Israel formally accepted Trump’s proposal and is now pressing Hamas to agree.

This diplomatic momentum underscores how military escalation facilitated renewed US mediation, which both bolsters Israeli policy goals and aligns them with Trump’s messaging on Middle East stability.

What once was a transactional alliance has become a strategic partnership with emotional currency. Netanyahu and Trump now share the narrative of decisive action against a common adversary.

That alignment helps Israel galvanize internal political support, while Trump reasserts himself as a peacemaker, poised to broker broader normalization with regional Arab states through Abraham Accords expansion – potentially including Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Lebanon.

Yet, experts caution that excess triumphalism risks undermining diplomacy. As foreign policy analysts argue, gloating about Iran’s setbacks without concrete verification or enforceable terms may weaken long-term stability. Even within the ceasefire with Iran, key details such as violation metrics, persistent nuclear risks, and Iran’s IAEA disengagement remain unresolved.

For Netanyahu, the Iran war narrative provides political oxygen. It not only helps deflect attention from his ongoing corruption trial but also plays well with right-wing voters who favor a hardline stance on Iran and Hamas.

Trump similarly benefits: positioning himself as the security-first US president who delivered results in the Middle East helps offset domestic criticism and reinforces support among older conservative bases.

Meanwhile, the Gaza war – initiated by Iran’s terror proxy Hamas – has created massive humanitarian fallout that has devastated both sides. International pressure against Israel has intensified, spotlighting accusations of collective punishment via blockades and indiscriminate strikes, while seemingly dismissing Israeli trauma and suffering. Meanwhile, Iran’s internal repression and alignment with China and Russia may ultimately undermine US containment strategies.

Netanyahu’s visit is being pitched as the moment to consolidate gains, pivot from wartime rhetoric to political strategy, and lock in US guarantees against Iran’s resurgence. As the Washington Institute puts it: it’s a chance to move the conversation from military action to durable political outcomes. Expectations range from planning normalization tracks and regional security pacts tied to the broader “deal of the century,” to securing US pressure on Hamas and aligning post-war Gaza governance.

That said, the strategic headwinds remain: the ceasefires are fragile, reconstruction of Gaza is desperately needed, and the Iran episode may not deliver a durable nuclear rollback. Without clearly defined follow-through, the “victory” framing could quickly unravel, leaving both leaders politically exposed.

Netanyahu’s Washington trip is less a mid-war strategy session and more a staging event – a showcase of the US–Israel alliance reborn through conflict. The Iran war has galvanized alignment, enabled diplomatic leverage, and reset joint agendas.

But for that reset to translate into lasting strategic gains – not just public optics – it must be followed by verification, restraint, and meaningful regional diplomacy. Otherwise, we might be plagued in the future by the same Middle East quagmire that each side so far has been so adamant to avoid.