Trump, Netanyahu talks shaped as much by politics as by policy - analysis

But as the two leaders sit down in Florida, another map will be foremost in their minds: the map of their own precarious domestic political landscapes.

The discussions on Iran are widely expected to focus on that country’s renewed ballistic-missile program, with Netanyahu looking for a green light to take preemptive action if necessary.

The talks about Gaza are expected to focus on what comes next under the US-backed phased plan. Washington is pushing for progress toward the next stage, which centers on security arrangements and the demilitarization of Hamas, ahead of any broader reconstruction effort.

Netanyahu, however, is expected to argue that the initial phase has not yet been fully completed, citing that the remains of slain hostage Ran Gvili have not been returned.

He is also likely to insist that meaningful steps toward Hamas’s demilitarization must precede any move to large-scale rehabilitation – a sequencing issue that could emerge as a point of friction.

But the summit – while dealing with foreign policy, with the situations in Lebanon and Syria also expected to play a role – is not only about foreign policy. It is also about domestic politics, both Trump’s and Netanyahu’s. Or, more precisely, the meeting has significant domestic political ramifications.

For both men, the meeting offers a tantalizing short-term boost in an election year – the US midterm elections in November and a Knesset election in Israel by at least the end of October. At the same time, if the meeting does not unfold as carefully choreographed, it could expose both leaders to political risks.

For Trump, facing low favorability ratings, a mixed economy, the long shadow of Jeffrey Epstein, and a restive isolationist base in his own party as he eyes the 2026 midterms, Netanyahu’s visit can help him promote domestic narratives he is eager to highlight.

The White House is trying to shift the public narrative away from the drawn-out fighting in Gaza toward a story of decisive leadership. By hosting Netanyahu at Mar-a-Lago, Trump gets images of himself setting terms to a leader whose alleged reluctance to move to the next stage of the ceasefire plan has reportedly frustrated the president’s own team.

The message the White House is trying to convey to voters is that the Gaza stabilization force Trump wants to deploy – even though its mandate is still vague, and no states have formally volunteered to join, apart from countries Israel would reject, such as Turkey and Qatar – would let the US reduce its footprint while still setting the rules. The argument is that this is Trump’s ultimate design: control without committing troops and open-ended entanglement.

A visible diplomatic deal that reduces direct US military exposure in Gaza appeals to the “America First” wing of the Republican Party, which – led by figures such as Vice President JD Vance and Tucker Carlson – is increasingly vocal against “forever wars.”

Trump could also use a tangible foreign-policy achievement to sell to voters sick and tired of global instability.

Securing Netanyahu’s public commitment to “Phase 2” of the plan – stabilization and reconstruction in Gaza – would allow Trump to claim he has “fixed” the situation, reinforcing his dealmaker image as the midterm cycle approaches.

This is especially important given that his efforts to broker a Russia-Ukraine deal have so far failed to produce results.

The political risk for Trump, however, is no less real. His “America First” base has grown increasingly sensitive to the costs of foreign entanglements and is impatient with them.

If Monday’s meeting is perceived as getting the US dragged into Gaza, or if it is seen as green-lighting a preemptive strike on Iran that sends global oil prices soaring – adding to inflation at a time when “affordability” is the new political buzzword in the US – then Trump could pay a political price for this meeting.

Trump is walking a tightrope between his pro-Israel mega-donors, such as Miriam Adelson, who want a hawkish stance, and his populist base that wants disengagement. A messy public fallout with Netanyahu could alienate the donors, but a “blank check” to Netanyahu – at least regarding Iran – could alienate part of his base.

For Netanyahu, the domestic dimension is even more explicit. Trailing in polls behind a potential Naftali Bennett-led coalition and facing threats to his government over the haredi draft exemption issue, the prime minister can use the Mar-a-Lago meetings to reset the narrative and reinforce what is likely to be a central campaign theme: “Only Bibi can manage the White House.”

The photo-op in Florida is meant to remind Israeli voters of Netanyahu’s supposed indispensability in Israel’s relationship with the US.

The visit also helps shift the news cycle away from unpopular domestic issues – the haredi conscription legislation and the reemergence of Qatargate – replacing images of coalition infighting with images of high-level statesmanship.

And if Netanyahu can get from Trump even a vague public statement supporting firmer action against Iran’s ballistic-missile program, he can wave this at home as a significant achievement that will bolster Israel’s deterrence and national security.

The risks for Netanyahu are no less real. If Trump – eager for a Gaza breakthrough – publicly corners Netanyahu and forces Israel to advance to the next phase without the return of Gvili or without disarming Hamas, Netanyahu risks being portrayed not as a leader who can manage Washington, but as one who cannot say no to it – even when Israel’s security interests are at stake.

This would make Netanyahu appear less like a leader able to adroitly manage Israel’s key relationship with Washington, and more like someone who has turned Israel into a US protectorate, unable to act independently.

Trump’s and Netanyahu’s different political needs create the visit’s core tension: The two leaders are running on mismatched political clocks.

Trump is operating on a midterm clock, needing a clean, neat, decisive diplomatic win to present to voters before the 2026 campaign heats up.

Netanyahu’s clock is different, one where ambiguity and delay are assets, since any decisive move on Gaza’s future now could come back to haunt him later during the election campaign.