Can Netanyahu derail Trump's Iran deal? Inside Israel's push to influence US

Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to shape the final terms of the US-Iran memorandum after its signing. The push centres on nuclear restrictions, Lebanon and widening differences with Donald Trump.

In Short

• Netanyahu sceptical of US-Iran deal's impact on Iran's nuclear programme
• He seeks to influence US via conservative media, pro-Israel Senators
• Lebanon remains key hurdle to peace deal implementation

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may have failed to stop the US-Iran agreement from being signed, but he is far from giving up on influencing its final outcome.

After US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian virtually signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at ending months of conflict between Washington and Tehran, a new 60-day negotiating period began. The talks will determine the future of Iran's nuclear programme, oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz and implementation of commitments outlined in the agreement.

For Netanyahu, however, the signing of the deal appears to mark the beginning of a new battle rather than the end of one.

NETANYAHU'S LONG-STANDING IRAN WARNING

For decades, Netanyahu has presented Iran as the greatest threat to Israel's security. He has repeatedly claimed that Tehran was moving toward acquiring a nuclear weapon and has urged successive American administrations to maintain maximum pressure on the Islamic Republic.

Now, according to reports from CNN and other US media outlets, Netanyahu remains deeply sceptical that Iran will accept meaningful restrictions on its nuclear programme. Israeli officials reportedly believe Tehran will ultimately reject key limitations sought by Washington.

That assessment has driven a fresh effort by Netanyahu and his allies to influence the debate in Washington.

According to reports, the Israeli leader has turned to conservative media personalities and pro-Israel lawmakers in an attempt to shape public opinion around the agreement and raise concerns inside the Trump administration.

One of the most vocal critics has been pro-Israel commentator Mark Levin, who argued that the deal "doesn't make any sense" and described the reconstruction package for Iran as a "slush fund".

The criticism is not limited to media figures.

Several Republican voices have also expressed concerns about aspects of the agreement, particularly provisions that could ease sanctions on Iran or provide economic relief.

Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy sharply criticised the deal, saying, "Reagan is rolling over in his grave."

"Iran's nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future," Cassidy said.

"Before the war, the strait was open, Iran was being crushed by sanctions, and 13 (US) service members were still alive. Now, 13 Americans are dead, families have paid billions at the pump, sanctions will be lifted, and the bombing has stopped. This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades," he added.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz also raised concerns over the economic provisions of the agreement.

"Is it giving $300 billion to the Iranian Ayatollah?" Cruz asked on his podcast. "I hope not. I pray not."

Former vice president Mike Pence similarly urged caution.

"I would urge the President to take a step back, continue the blockade and pursue a negotiated settlement that commits Iran to dismantling their nuclear program, dismantling this missile program, ends support for terrorist proxies and opens the strait," Pence said.

"Failing that, we should let our Armed Forces finish the job on our terms."

THE LEBANON PROBLEM

While Iran's nuclear programme dominates headlines, Lebanon may prove to be one of the most difficult issues facing negotiators.

The memorandum calls for the "immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon". It also commits the parties to preserving Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

However, the document leaves major questions unanswered.

Israel is not a signatory to the agreement. The deal was signed by the United States and Iran, not Israel and Lebanon. As a result, there is a big gap over how any ceasefire provisions would actually be implemented on the ground.

The memorandum also does not spell out whether Iran must end support for Hezbollah or how regional armed groups linked to Tehran would be treated under the agreement.

Those gaps have fuelled concerns that the Lebanon component could become one of the biggest obstacles to implementation.

ISRAEL SAYS IT IS NOT BOUND BY THE DEAL

The challenge became even more apparent after reports emerged that Netanyahu told Trump that Israel does not consider itself bound by the agreement. Despite pressure from Washington, Israel has continued to insist that its security concerns take precedence. Israeli troops continued their attack on southern parts of Lebanon.

Speaking earlier this week, Netanyahu made clear that he still views threats from Iran's regional allies as a major danger.

"We established deep security zones around the State of Israel. We did this in Gaza, in Lebanon, and in Syria," he said.

Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz delivered an even firmer message.

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and I are pursuing a clear policy under which the (military) will remain in the security zones in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza for an unlimited period of time in order to protect the border and Israeli communities from there against jihadist elements," Katz said.

The disagreement over Lebanon reflects broader tensions that have emerged between Trump and Netanyahu. They have clashed repeatedly over the deal.

While Netanyahu has continued to advocate military pressure, Trump has increasingly focused on securing a lasting agreement and preventing a wider regional war.

- Ends