Netanyahu’s Shadow Over Trump: A Fracture Between U.S. Power and Policy
WANA (Apr 16) – In recent days, a growing debate has taken shape across American political and media circles over the extent of Benjamin Netanyahu’s influence over Donald Trump’s decision-making—an argument that has moved beyond elite analysis and into public discourse and social media.
A number of American analysts argue that the United States’ global credibility has declined to an unprecedented level during this period, with criticism of its foreign policy management intensifying even within the country itself.
Within this context, some critics have gone further, claiming that Trump lacks full independence in major strategic decisions. These claims have escalated to the point where terms such as “subordination” and “being controlled” are being used on social media to describe his relationship with Netanyahu. At the same time, others point to signs of disorganization and a lack of coherence within the White House foreign policy team.
One of the more controversial issues centers on multiple phone calls made by Vice President J.D. Vance during the Islamabad talks —particularly his communication with Netanyahu. Critics in the United States question how, while the Iranian delegation appeared with full authority and a highly specialized negotiating team, the American side seemed unprepared and lacking autonomy, with suggestions that it may even have been influenced by a foreign actor.
In this context, some analysts have portrayed Vance as a figure with limited decision-making power, reportedly under close monitoring by individuals such as Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner during the trip.
Pakistan Negotiations: When Iran Stayed Unified and the US Lost Control
WANA (Apr 14) – The negotiations, which lasted about 24 consecutive hours—partly in trilateral, face-to-face meetings and partly through written exchanges—and extended into technical and expert-level discussions, reflected a high degree of seriousness. The Iranian delegation consisted of the main negotiators, an expert team, a media team, and security and support units. The diversity […]
At a broader level, this situation has highlighted a critical duality in U.S. policy: a direct tension between American national interests and Israeli strategic priorities.
Especially following developments around the Strait of Hormuz, this divide has become more visible. If Trump aligns his policies with Netanyahu’s demands, he risks facing a wave of domestic economic and social backlash.
Conversely, moving toward de-escalation and reaching an agreement with Iran could help stabilize the situation, but would likely result in a relative weakening and isolation of Israel—an outcome that, according to critics, is difficult to achieve given Netanyahu’s level of influence.
In this regard, analysts such as John Mearsheimer have described the current situation as a strategic deadlock for Trump. He has emphasized that the United States is simultaneously facing two major challenges:
- Iran, which appears to hold the upper hand in the conflict,
- and Israel, which—according to this view—may be preventing Washington from exiting the crisis even at the expense of U.S. national interests.
An Iranian newspaper with a cover photo of U.S. President Donald Trump is seen, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, April 5, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
At the same time, there are also claims regarding political and security pressure on Trump. Some reports reference the Jeffrey Epstein case, suggesting it may have been used as leverage against him. Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell at the U.S. Department of State, has also alluded to such pressure—adding another layer of complexity to an already constrained decision-making environment.
On the ground, assessments indicate that Netanyahu views the confrontation with Iran not only as a security necessity but as an existential struggle. Accordingly, he is believed to seek maximum advantage from U.S. involvement—whether through maximalist objectives such as regime change in Iran, or more limited goals such as the dismantling of its nuclear and missile capabilities. However, the prolonged nature of the conflict has demonstrated that these objectives remain far from achievable.
Meanwhile, the United States itself is facing growing constraints in continuing this path—from internal political and economic pressures to diminishing support among Western allies.
In this context, measures such as announcing a blockade of Iranian ports are seen by some analysts as leverage in negotiations—an attempt to secure a deal that could offer an exit strategy from the current impasse.
Despite this, uncertainty remains high. Many observers argue that any meaningful progress toward de-escalation depends primarily on Washington’s ability to restrain or persuade Netanyahu. Otherwise, the likelihood of further escalation—and potentially a new phase of conflict—remains on the table, a scenario that could have far-reaching consequences for the United States’ global standing.
Trump’s Infrastructure Gamble: From War Crimes to Political Suicide
WANA (Apr 06) – Yesterday, Donald Trump once again sent the world into shock with an “ultimatum.” Having previously threatened to strike Iran’s vital facilities multiple times—only to delay each time under the pretext of “negotiations” or “requests from mediators”—he has now set a precise deadline, naming Tuesday (8:00 p.m. Tuesday, Eastern Time) as the […]
