트럼프의 '마이웨이' 외교와 벼랑 끝에 선 네타냐후의 딜레마 > K-wave Trends

The spark for this crisis was Israel's strike on Beirut, Lebanon. Israel's airstrike, aimed at key Hezbollah strongholds, immediately boomeranged into an Iranian counterattack, with Iran launching dozens of ballistic missiles at the Israeli mainland, opening the door to direct military conflict. President Trump expressed strong dissatisfaction with this series of military exchanges. In particular, he showed blatant displeasure over the Lebanon strike, which was carried out without his prior coordination, and strongly pressured Prime Minister Netanyahu to halt retaliation. Trump argued that since Israel and Iran had already exchanged attacks, they had done enough, making it clear that further escalation would yield no practical benefits.

The core strategy of the Trump administration is to swiftly conclude a final agreement with Iran. Believing that peace negotiations between the U.S. and Iran are in their final stages, Trump is anxious that this military clash might overturn the negotiating table he has worked so hard to build. He called Prime Minister Netanyahu directly, delivering ultra-hardline remarks such as "I am the one who makes the decisions," and made it clear that Israel's actions must not interfere with U.S. Middle East strategy. This is interpreted as an attempt to demonstrate to both domestic and international audiences that the U.S. is the final arbiter of Middle Eastern affairs, and a strategic move to fundamentally block Netanyahu's independent right to retaliate.

On the other hand, Prime Minister Netanyahu finds himself in a dilemma despite Trump's dissuasion. While he maintains a hardline stance by ordering the Israeli military to prepare to strike military and economic facilities across Iran, he is being cautious about pressing the final attack button. In a video message, Netanyahu announced that airstrikes on Iran would be suspended for the time being, while adding a warning that if Iran provokes again, he would retaliate with overwhelming force. This is interpreted as a political gesture to appease hardliners within Israel and emphasize that he has not abandoned the right to self-defense, while appearing to accept Trump's pressure.

According to local and foreign media, Israel is currently deeply conflicted over the intensity of its retaliation. Although the Israeli military claims it is ready to counterattack at any time, the risks of launching an independent operation that would completely shatter relations with the U.S. are too high. In fact, although Netanyahu convened his security cabinet to discuss response measures immediately after his call with Trump, there is a sense that the government is leaning toward "postponing for several days" rather than immediate retaliation. This suggests that Trump's influence remains a significant variable in Israel's national security decision-making process.

While Trump and Netanyahu claim to be "good friends" on the surface, a tense tug-of-war over tactical differences and the reins of power flows beneath the surface. Trump does not hesitate to use harsh language toward Netanyahu, such as saying, "He would be in jail if it weren't for me," to flaunt his influence, while Netanyahu tries to avoid direct confrontation and focus on practical gains. Their relationship goes beyond mere personal friendship, clearly illustrating the clash between the "order" the U.S. desires in the Middle East and the "survival" Israel pursues. Ultimately, the direction of this crisis surrounding Iran will be determined between Trump's negotiating table and Netanyahu's political decisions.