Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu huddled with his security cabinet in a bunker late Sunday night, ready for the potential of Iranian ballistic missiles, when the phone rang.
On the line was President Donald Trump, calling with news of a memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran.
It was the second phone call of the day between the two leaders.
In the first, Trump told the Israeli leader he was “pissed off” at Israel’s earlier strike on Beirut and that Netanyahu “has no fucking judgment,” according to Axios. In the second, Trump informed him the war they had launched together in late February was effectively over.
When President Barack Obama signed a nuclear deal with Iran in 2015, Netanyahu rejected it publicly and forcefully. He spoke before Congress, knowing he had the support of Republicans as he bashed both the deal and the president who pursued it. This time, the Israeli prime minister has said almost nothing publicly about the man who made the agreement.
The emerging accord is the scenario Israeli officials have spent weeks dreading: It could reopen the Strait of Hormuz and lead to the easing of economic sanctions on Tehran while delaying talks on the issues that were Israel’s declared war goals. The memorandum of understanding leaves for later discussion the thorny topics of Iran’s nuclear program and its ballistic missile arsenal, even as it offers economic respite to the regime Netanyahu wanted to topple.
When Netanyahu finally made public comments after Trump announced the memorandum of understanding, it was hours after other Israeli politicians had already spoken. In a press conference Monday evening, Netanyahu hardly mentioned the deal in his entire eight-minute opening statement.
Perhaps even more surprising is that he barely mentioned Trump in his opening remarks, instead of boasting about their relationship as he has regularly for years.
When asked about the deal afterward, he said: “There are cases in which President Trump and I do not see eye to eye. … I am responsible for Israel’s security interests, and it needs to be done wisely.”
The agreement also may entail new restrictions on Israel’s ability to fight Hezbollah, as Iran is demanding a full Israeli military withdrawal from southern Lebanon, something Israel has said it is unwilling to do.
On Monday, a senior US official told reporters that withdrawal “was not a condition of the deal.”
“If Iran is not able to control Hezbollah, and if they attack, you know, Israeli positions or Israeli towns, Israel will have the right to defend themselves and respond,” the official said.
While Netanyahu has so far avoided a direct public confrontation with Trump, figures across the Israeli political spectrum have been far less restrained. Netanyahu’s own far-right coalition partners, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, called it a “dangerous deal” and declared Israel does not consider itself bound by it.
Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who is running to unseat Netanyahu, called it “a dangerous turn in Israel’s security.” Former Israeli military Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot, also a leading contender for the premiership, described it as a “miserable result” born of a lack of strategy and courage.
Netanyahu’s reticence reflects a sensitive foreign policy moment, but also how central Trump is to his electoral strategy. Months ago, sources tell CNN, his political team had envisioned a clear arc for the election: a swift victory over Iran, a triumphant visit to the White House in September, a return visit by Trump to Israel in the final stretch, and a flood of presidential imagery sweeping Netanyahu all the way to the polls in October.
Instead, discussions to end the war are straining relations between the two leaders. A series of public disagreements exposed Trump’s pressure on Israel to end the war and limit its actions in Lebanon. His outspoken calls for Israel to cease fire and announcements about the nuclear negotiations on Truth Social, as well as a recent comment to ABC News questioning whether Netanyahu still wants to “continue” in politics, have all caught the Israeli prime minister off guard, according to sources.
Political consultant Nadav Strauchler, who previously worked with Netanyahu, described the current moment as a “test point,” but not a breaking point.
“I wouldn’t eulogize the relationship so fast,” he said, adding that with October elections roughly four months away, the relationship can recover, and predicting Trump will still be a center stone in the campaign.
“Trump has been angry before — at Netanyahu, at other leaders — and things tend to fall back into place,” Strauchler told CNN. “Until the last two weeks there was hardly any daylight between them,” he said. “Even now, Trump still respects him and isn’t closing the door. There are still 60 days to influence the final nuclear deal. As long as a candle is burning and the window is open, Netanyahu will try to get in through the chimney.”
The mood shift is easy to track on Channel 14, the pro-Netanyahu television network where presenters who once called Trump the greatest gift to the Jewish people are now denouncing him as a “loser” who has weakened both Israel and America. One Likud source privately compared him to the emperor of Japan in defeat.
“Right now, Trump is highly unpopular within Netanyahu’s base,” the source said, while noting the shift could still prove temporary ahead of October’s elections.
The numbers tell the same story. A recent survey by the Israel Democracy Institute published last week found a sharp drop in the share of Jewish Israelis who view Israel’s security as a central consideration for Trump — from 64% in March to 44% this month, the lowest level recorded since late 2024.
“Trump’s stock is declining,” right-wing political analyst Mati Tuchfeld wrote in the Maariv newspaper last week, “not a crash or collapse, but the trend is downward.” Netanyahu’s campaign team, he reported, is now searching for new messaging because a “Strong Together” campaign featuring the two leaders “will no longer achieve the same effect it was originally expected to deliver.”
Opposition leaders are also eyeing the shift. A source familiar with their planning told CNN that if Trump endorses Netanyahu, his opponents plan to use it against him and frame it as proof that he has “turned into a poodle and given up Israel’s security interests.” Opposition figures, the source said, have been conveying messages to Trump’s contacts, urging him not to endorse Netanyahu or take an active part in his campaign.
However, Netanyahu’s camp still believes it’s only a temporary hurdle. Behind the scenes, an Israeli source told CNN that Netanyahu is quietly seeking a one-on-one meeting with the US president — something his office has denied. Such a meeting would allow Netanyahu to convey his concerns about the emerging Iran deal to Trump. And it would give Netanyahu the political currency he was hoping to trade on: a picture of how close he is to Trump.

UFC boss Dana White spoken out against against Josh Hokit after the fighter made disparaging and false remarks about Michelle Obama during the White House’s UFC Freedom 250 event.
“I understand that the Obamas are public figures but I’m completely against saying nasty and false things about people’s families,” White wrote Time magazine in a text message. “Everyone knows my position on free speech but I hate that kind of nonsense.”
After winning his heavyweight fight against Derrick Lewis on the White House lawn, Hokit was interviewed on the Paramount+ livestream by Joe Rogan. Unexpectedly, Hokit shouted into the microphone, “And lastly, Michelle Obama is a man. Am I right, America?,” drawing cheers and screams from the live audience. The incendiary remarks were roundly criticized on social media but went unaddressed throughout the remainder of the broadcast. Rogan appeared flustered and backed away from the fighter, only saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, Josh Hokit.”
White House spokesman Steven Cheung dodged a question about Hokit’s comment, saying, “He had a great win last night. He showed toughness and the ability to pressure his opponent both on his feet and on the ground,” according to CNN’s Jake Tapper.
The bloody spectacle — a celebration of America’s 250th anniversary that also happened to land on Donald Trump’s 80th birthday — was otherwise largely avoidant of partisan politics. UFC athletes (both from the U.S. and other countries) walked out the White House and into the octagon, with Trump, the First Lady Melania and UFC CEO Dana White sitting cageside. The fighters marched alongside U.S. veterans and first responders as people dressed as Revolutionary War soldiers stood guard. The Zac Brown Band performed the national anthem.

After a year that brought Iranians two devastating wars, mass protests crushed by the government and an imploding economy, Iran’s appearance in the World Cup is doing little to cheer people up or to unite the country.
Some Iranians view the national soccer team as representatives of a repressive government. Others see the players as a source of pride that should transcend politics. But the overall feeling, expressed in interviews with Iranians across the political spectrum in recent days, is one of exhaustion and jadedness.
Iranians’ problems are so dire, it appears, that even seeing their national team play at the highest levels of an enormously popular sport won’t deliver much-needed distraction.
“People don’t feel pride anymore,” said Iman, 38, a Tehran resident who said he would not be supporting the Iranian team. Like others interviewed by The New York Times, he declined to be fully identified for fear of government reprisal.
“People have so many problems and are dealing with so many challenges that this soccer thing is really not a big deal for them,” he added.
Another Tehran resident, Iraj, 48, said he would be cheering on the national team. But, he said, “everyone is so occupied with other things that soccer really doesn’t unite.”
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Welcome to Great Adaptations, the Book Review’s regular multiple-choice quiz about printed works that have gone on to find new life as movies, television shows, theatrical productions and more. As America edges closer to its 250th birthday next month, this week’s challenge highlights the popular screen adaptations of books about significant eras in the country’s history. Just tap or click your answers to the five questions below. Scroll down after you finish the last question for links to the books and their screen versions.
Through the life of its feisty lawyer subject, this 2008 HBO mini-series followed several decades of the United States of America as it moved from British colony to independent nation. Which book was the source of the television adaptation?
“The Killer Angels,” Michael Shaara’s 1974 historical novel, won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction and was later adapted into which 1993 film about a pivotal 1863 event during the American Civil War?
“Band of Brothers” is a sweeping 10-part television adaptation about a group of American soldiers in Europe during World War II. Which historian is the author of the 1992 book that inspired the show?
America’s space race with the Soviet Union was one of the country’s driving forces for science and technology in the second half of the 20th century. Which 2016 book (with a film adaptation of the same name) showcased the efforts of several NASA employees as they worked on the 1962 Friendship 7 mission?
The war in Vietnam during the 1960s and ’70s impacted American politics, society and culture for years and still echoes today. Lynda Van Devanter’s 1983 memoir “Home Before Morning” was among the inspirations for a 1988 television series that explored the role of women during the conflict. Which show is it?

LOADINGERROR LOADING
Is he not entertained?
President Donald Trump and thousands of others at the White House UFC event got the bloodiest fight for last. (Watch the clips and photos below.)
American Justin Gaethje became the undisputed UFC lightweight champion when Ilia Topuria’s corner stopped the “ultra-violent” main event at the end of the fourth round, ESPN reported.
Advertisement
Or as the White House press pool put it, “Topuria’s face was beaten to such a bloody pulp that he was declared incapable of continuing.”
MMA Mania’s headline for the UFC Freedom 250 bout was even more lurid: “Justin Gaethje mutilates Ilia Topuria’s blood-soaked face.”
Advertisement
The designated “fight of the night” award earned Gaethje and Topuria an extra $400,000 apiece, plus an additional $425,000 to Gaethje for “performance of the night.”
Advertisement
Gaethje got a congratulatory handshake from Trump for his upset victory. A “busted up” Topuria was taken to the hospital, UFC boss Dana White said, speculating that he had a broken orbital bone
The two went toe to toe early.
Advertisement
Topuria, a Spanish-Georgian, even had the momentum at one point.
But it didn’t last.
Advertisement
Advertisement
From Our Partner
Trending In Politics
More In Politics