The third summit between President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu this year has ended, but there are still more questions than concrete answers about the nature of their meetings and the outcome. To help understand the significance of their meetings, what took place, and what to look for in the coming weeks and months, in the recent episode of the “Inspiration from Zion” podcast, military and political analyst Elliot Chodoff and journalist Jonathan Tobin provided a deep dive into the high-level meetings. The conversation was rich with strategic and political analysis, explored the outcomes, implications, and future projections as of these talks, the war against Hamas, returning of 50 hostages, implications of the war against Iran, and the broader Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape.
The Trump-Netanyahu meetings were marked by significant speculation about potential breakthroughs, leading many to look for A Big Beautiful Deal particularly regarding a ceasefire with Hamas and broader regional agreements. In fact, the absence of a major announcement, such as a ceasefire with Hamas or an expansion of the Abraham Accords raised questions as to the nature of the meetings. Chodoff and Tobin emphasized the importance of the meetings was significant alone due to the strategic importance of maintaining a close U.S.-Israel relationship, particularly under Trump, whose personal style demands loyalty and public displays of alignment. Tobin highlighted that Netanyahu’s visit was not merely a “love fest” but a critical effort to align Israel’s interests with American priorities, especially given the personal nature of Trump’s diplomacy.
A central focus of the meetings was the ongoing war in Gaza, where Israel’s stated goals—destroying Hamas and securing the release of hostages—remain elusive after 21 months. Chodoff outlined a three-tiered view of Hamas relating to these objectives: its military infrastructure (largely dismantled), its guerrilla capabilities (still active), and its ability to control the Palestinian population through fear (nearly impossible to eradicate). He argued that Israel has entered a phase of diminishing returns in the active combat with recent ambushes, like the loss of several soldiers in each of two consecutive weeks. He suggested a fatigued IDF still adapting to Hamas’ guerrilla warfare.
Chodoff speculated that Netanyahu might welcome a U.S.-imposed ceasefire, allowing him to claim he had no choice, thus avoiding domestic backlash while stepping back from a costly operation. The domestic implications of this might be the weakening of Netanyahu’s coalition government, but strengthening his position with the end of combat, weekly deaths, and return of the hostages.
Tobin, however, expressed skepticism about a ceasefire, noting that Hamas “gets a vote” and may not agree to terms that allow it to survive without significant concessions. He warned that a deal leaving Hamas intact could enable it to claim victory, undermining Israel’s strategic objectives. Both agreed that the goals of defeating Hamas and returning all the hostages are likely mutually exclusive, posing a political and strategic challenge for Netanyahu. Tobin emphasized that Trump’s desire for a deal to bolster his second-term legacy might pressure Israel into concessions, though he acknowledged Trump’s sensitivity to Israel’s security needs.
Regarding Israel and the US’ recent tag team military campaign against Iran, “Operation Rising Lion” and “Midnight Hammer,” Chodoff described it as a tactically flawless 12-day operation that set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions by years. However, he cautioned that it was a campaign within a broader war dating back to 1979, not a resolution. Chodoff criticized Trump’s decision to impose a ceasefire, arguing it halted Israel’s momentum in weakening Iran’s regime control institutions, potentially missing a chance to empower internal opposition. He dismissed negotiations with Iran’s Khomeinist regime, equating their anti-Israel stance to a non-negotiable religious tenet.
Tobin agreed that Iran’s nuclear threat was reduced but argued that Trump’s strategy—inflicting damage and then offering negotiations—might suffice, given Iran’s financial constraints. He noted a divergence in U.S. and Israeli interests. While both oppose a nuclear Iran, the U.S. is less inclined to pursue regime change, which Trump views as risky. Both underscored the need for continued vigilance, with Chodoff advocating a zero-tolerance policy for any Iranian violations, similar to Israel’s approach with Hezbollah.
There had been anticipation of an announcement of the widening of the Abraham Accords, with Trump reportedly eager to include Saudi Arabia, and Syria and other Arab and Islamic states floated as possible members. Tobin was skeptical, arguing that Iran’s weakened state reduces Saudi motivation for formal recognition of Israel, as their covert cooperation sufficiently serves Saudi interests. He also dismissed the notion of Syria joining the Accords under its new leadership, led by a former terrorist leader, describing Syria as a “banana republic without bananas” due to its unstable, tribal nature. Chodoff agreed but suggested that symbolic gestures, like removing Syria from terrorist lists, could be reversible and worth exploring cautiously, provided Israel does not cede tangible assets like territory.
The outcome of the international summit also has implications for Netanyahu’s domestic standing. Tobin noted that despite the October 7, 2023, attack occurring under his watch, Netanyahu’s political resilience—bolstered by a loyal 25-30 percent voter base and favorable demographics—makes him the likely winner in the next election currently scheduled for late 2026. However, Chodoff highlighted emerging challenges, including economic fallout from the war which has still yet to be fully absorbed, and discontent among reservists and religious Zionists, which could erode his coalition. Both agreed that the war’s unresolved issues and economic costs could shape Israel’s political landscape, with new centrist movements led by reserve officers potentially complicating Netanyahu’s coalition-building. Yet both agreed that Netanyahu is never the candidate to count out.
Looking ahead, Tobin advised watching Trump’s statements for signs of frustration with Israel’s positions, which could embolden U.S. critics. Chodoff echoed this, emphasizing the need for alignment without compromising Israel’s security.
With no clear announcements of a major deal or anything concrete, and the significant discussions held in private without even an Oval Office photo opportunity, a delicate balancing act exists : Netanyahu navigating domestic pressures, Trump’s deal-driven agenda, and the intractable and yet to be completely defeated challenges of Hamas, Iran, and regional diplomacy.
Author's Note: See the entire conversation HERE, or listen to the audio HERE.