Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made an unscheduled trip to Washington to press President Donald Trump to harden American negotiating demands with Tehran, insisting any agreement must go beyond nuclear constraints to include limits on Iran's ballistic missile programme and an end to support for regional proxy militias. Israeli officials say the meeting, slated to be private, is intended to ensure that Israel's security “red lines” — nuclear capacity, missile reach and proxy networks — are not sidelined as the United States explores a diplomatic track with Iran.
The timing and tempo of the visit underline Israeli unease with the current trajectory of U.S.–Iran engagement. Netanyahu has positioned himself as a direct conduit of Israeli intelligence to the White House, briefing senior U.S. intermediaries in recent days and seeking to deliver the same material in person to Trump. He is travelling with senior military figures and is explicitly aiming to persuade the president that Tehran’s missile developments will soon threaten not only Israel but American interests as well.
Tehran reacted sharply, calling the visit “destructive” to the diplomatic process and urging Washington to choose its negotiating partners carefully. The contentions reflect an enduring fault line in past negotiations: Washington has historically focused on constraining Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle, whereas Israel — and some Gulf partners — demand a broader package that addresses delivery systems and the state's backing for militias across the Levant.
The trip also serves multiple domestic and strategic purposes for Netanyahu. It allows him to show decisive leadership on national security to an Israeli electorate sensitive to existential threats, while also narrowing the channels between Jerusalem and the Oval Office during a delicate phase of U.S. diplomacy. For Washington, the visit presents a choice: accept Israeli pressure to widen the negotiating agenda, potentially complicating talks with Tehran, or keep the negotiation narrowly nuclear-focused and risk alienating a close ally.
The immediate stakes are practical and political. If Washington accepts Israel’s demands, talks with Tehran could bog down over missile and regional-security clauses that are harder to verify and politically fraught. If Washington resists, Israel will intensify intelligence sharing and diplomatic pressure, and could prepare contingency options short of unilateral large-scale military action. Observers should watch whether the White House publicly narrows the talks to enrichment and fissile material controls, or signals willingness to fold in stricter limits on ballistic delivery systems and proxy support.