Trump’s Iran war strains Israel ties with public feuds

As the war with Iran enters its fifth month, critics say President Donald Trump’s Iran “memorandum of understanding” and public clashes with Israel’s leadership are widening fractures between the allies—while leaving Iran with leverage in the Strait of Hormuz.

When President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu teamed up for a war effort against Iran, the promise was decisive action. Four months on, the conflict is entering its fifth month—and the biggest damage may be what it’s doing to the relationship between America and Israel.

Trump defended a US-Iran deal tied to nuclear warnings while addressing Israel and Lebanon tensions at the G7. But inside the debate among pro-Israel Americans. frustration is spreading on both the policy and the politics—especially around the “memorandum of understanding” (MOU) Trump agreed to with Iran without Israel’s participation.

One critical concern is that the war has not produced the kind of end-state that supporters of a tougher approach wanted. Iran is “a wreck,” one account says—but so is the alliance relationship. Iran likely treats the situation as a victory of its own.

In interviews conducted on June 26 while both men were in Israel, two American leaders from pro-Israel organizations described shared concerns about the MOU and the mounting strain between Washington and Jerusalem.

J Street’s Ilan Goldenberg, senior vice president and chief policy officer at the progressive, pro-peace group J Street, said Trump’s MOU with Iran is a bad deal. Continuing the war, he argued, would be worse.

Michael Makovsky, CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America—a more hawkish organization—also criticized the MOU. But where Goldenberg worried about escalation. Makovsky said the war should continue until Iran’s nuclear program is eliminated and the Strait of Hormuz is fully open to traffic.

Makovsky spoke to reporters after participating in a delegation that met with Netanyahu on June 22. He argued that public feuding between American and Israeli officials “only boomerangs against us” and benefits Iran. He added that the Iranians are “effectively mocking President Trump” by denying the terms of the announced agreement and continuing attacks in the Strait of Hormuz.

Public conflict is now part of the policy fight. Trump has confirmed recent reports that he profanely berated Netanyahu, and that the partners in war failed to remove Iran’s regime while also creating economic stress in America and around the world.

Vice President JD Vance, in a not-so-veiled public warning, cast America as Israel’s only international friend and supporter after Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir objected to the MOU in a social media post.

Makovsky said it is “a little mind-boggling, frankly, and obviously strategically damaging to the United States to have these public spats when President Trump does it, and obviously it’s really stupid if any Israeli official does that as well.”

He warned that America’s relationship with Israel could be further strained by a “strategically feckless” resolution—one that leaves Iran’s regime in place, does not address nuclear concerns, and allows Iranian control of the strait.

How the war landed—and why the rift was there even before it began—was also described.

Netanyahu, according to Goldenberg’s account, lobbied American presidents for years to partner in a military attack to wipe out Iran’s repressive regime. He sold the war with Iran to Trump in a February meeting in the White House’s Situation Room.

But Goldenberg said the breaking point between America and Israel began a decade ago. He traced it to when then-President Barack Obama negotiated the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran—an agreement that outraged Netanyahu. Goldenberg said Netanyahu then aligned himself with American Republicans who opposed the deal. and Democrats who had been widely supportive of Israel began to “peel away.”.

Now, with the war underway, Goldenberg said independents who supported Trump because of his campaign pledge to stay out of foreign conflicts are concerned—and that the crisis may open “a conversation inside the Republican Party” about the US relationship with Israel.

He pointed to right-wing influencers—Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and former U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene—as part of starting that conversation, and he linked it to Vance’s criticism of Netanyahu’s Cabinet.

One possible consequence, Goldenberg said, is an end to what he called America’s “blank check support” for Israel.

The economic and security relationship has been deeply intertwined for years. The United States was the first country to recognize Israel as a new nation in 1948. The Council on Foreign Relations in 2025 reported that Israel has received more than $300 billion in economic and military assistance—adjusted for inflation—from America.

A 10-year agreement signed in 2016 as Obama was finishing his second term provided $3.8 billion in funding for Israel per year, which the White House called “a significant increase” at the time.

Goldenberg said he does not expect that deal to be renewed when it expires in 2028. He also predicted the US would scale back on providing Israel with offensive weapons. emphasizing “Iron Dome” missile defenses instead—particularly if Democrats make big gains in the November midterm elections and win the White House in 2028.

The war’s end-state may also widen the gap further. Goldenberg said Iran emerges from the war bloodied and broken—but also positioned to benefit from lifted sanctions on lucrative oil sales. the prospect of a $300 billion reconstruction fund. billions more in frozen assets being released. and the potential for future tolling of ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

He described a long-term scenario long discussed as the danger to be avoided: a region where “Iran still in power, weaker, angrier, more dangerous, with the U.S. stuck managing a messier, more unstable Middle East.” Goldenberg said that sounds like the region’s current situation.

He added that any new outbreak of hostilities would create “more backlash” as Trump’s administration would have to “tamp Israel down” from aggressive retaliation.

At this point, the best hope for the relationship may be a return to the status quo before Trump and Netanyahu started the war four months ago. That is described as unlikely because Iran has successfully frustrated the partners in war and has no reason to stop.

The pressure, the interviews suggest, is likely to pull the alliance tighter in one sense—through common risk in the Middle East—while pushing the two governments further apart in another: the political handling of the war, the public messaging around it, and what comes next.

The tension already created may inevitably drive America and Israel further apart, a victory Iran might not have expected but will certainly celebrate.

Trump Iran Netanyahu J Street Jewish Institute for National Security of America MOU Strait of Hormuz Israel-US relations Itamar Ben-Gvir JD Vance Iron Dome G7 nuclear deal 2015 sanctions reconstruction fund frozen assets