Is Trump keeping Netanyahu in the dark over the details of Iran deal?

At the centre of the controversy is a memorandum of understanding (MoU) negotiated between the administration of United States President Donald Trump and Iran.

While the document is expected to be unveiled publicly after a signing ceremony in Switzerland later this week, reports from Israeli media suggest that even Israel — Washington's closest ally in the region and a country directly affected by many of the agreement's provisions — has not been allowed to review its contents.

The state of relations between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is being questioned at a time when both leaders appear increasingly divided over the future of the conflict with Iran and Israel's continuing military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Has Israel been denied access to the agreement?

The controversy came to light after reports emerged in Israeli media that Jerusalem had attempted to obtain a copy of the US-Iran memorandum but was denied access. “Israel asked to see the Iran-US MoU. the admin said, ‘NO,'” i24 News diplomatic correspondent Amichai Stein reported on X.

More from Explainers

Persian Gulf conflict marks the arrival of an age of incomplete wars

Trump’s Iran deal is yet fragile: Peace in West Asia remains a distant dream

The agreement reportedly contains provisions that could directly influence Israeli military operations and broader regional security arrangements.

Israel's i24 News described the situation as a “remarkable and highly unusual development between close allies on an issue of such critical national security importance”.

CNN reported that permission to view the document was withheld because Trump feared that details could become public before the official release of the agreement. According to that account, the US president was concerned that Netanyahu could leak portions of the text ahead of the planned unveiling.

However, American officials have disputed claims that Israel has been excluded from the process. A US official described reports that Israel had been denied access to the text as “not accurate,” adding that “the United States has remained in close coordination with our regional partners, including Israel, throughout the negotiations.”

Another source familiar with communications between Washington and Jerusalem stated that “the Israelis did not make any such request of US negotiators.” Despite those denials, Israeli media reports indicate that Netanyahu himself has not been among those permitted to examine the agreement before its formal release.

The issue is particularly sensitive because the memorandum may have direct implications for Israel's military posture, especially in Lebanon.

What is known about the US-Iran memorandum?

Although the document itself has not yet been published, information that emerged on Tuesday provided a clearer picture of its broad framework.

The memorandum is intended to build upon a ceasefire announced in April and extend it for another 60 days. The extension is designed to provide time for further negotiations aimed at reaching a more comprehensive and lasting settlement.

One of the most significant reported provisions concerns maritime trade and energy routes. According to officials familiar with the arrangement, the United States would end its blockade of Iranian ports.

In return, Tehran would restore the movement of oil tankers and commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most strategically important waterways.

The strait has been heavily affected since military operations involving the United States and Israel began earlier this year. Any agreement restoring normal shipping would therefore have implications not only for regional security but also for global energy markets.

Another key component of the memorandum relates to Iran's nuclear programme. Trump has repeatedly stated that the agreement explicitly prevents Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Earlier on Tuesday, Trump warned that “all hell will rain down” on Iran if the regime does try to obtain nuclear weapons. Iran, for its part, has consistently maintained that its nuclear activities are peaceful and not intended for military purposes.

Trump has indicated that the full text of the agreement will be released publicly following the formal signing ceremony expected later this week.

Senior American officials have said Washington is not yet prepared to publish the document, while Iranian media and Trump himself have suggested that disclosure will occur after the agreement is formally signed in Switzerland.

What about Lebanon?

Perhaps the most politically sensitive aspect of the memorandum involves Lebanon and Hezbollah. Early details that emerged from reports suggest that the agreement contains language requiring all groups aligned with either Washington or Tehran to halt hostilities throughout the region.

According to those reports, Israel's conflict with Hezbollah is specifically referenced as part of that broader framework.

That provision immediately created tension because Netanyahu has publicly indicated that Israel intends to continue military operations in Lebanon. On Monday, the Israeli prime minister stated that Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon “as long as necessary.”

The comments highlighted a potential disconnect between Israeli policy and the broader diplomatic effort being pursued by Washington. Netanyahu also acknowledged the role played by Trump in shaping the agreement.

Referring to the memorandum, he described it as “Trump’s decision,” while adding, “Many times, we agree. Sometimes we don’t agree.”

The differing interpretations became even more apparent after US Vice President JD Vance suggested that Israel and Lebanon were included within the agreement's framework.

The uncertainty has also attracted attention from Hezbollah. A spokesperson for the group told Reuters that Hezbollah believes Iran would not agree to a permanent settlement if Israeli forces remained in occupied Lebanese territory.

At the same time, Iran's military command, Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, issued a warning that Israel should expect a strong response if attacks in southern Lebanon continued.

How is the Trump-Netanyahu relationship faring?

The debate surrounding the memorandum comes amid one of the most visible periods of tension between Trump and Netanyahu in years. The two leaders have generally enjoyed a close political relationship.

As recently as last year, Netanyahu told Trump that he was the “greatest friend Israel ever had in the White House." However, recent events have exposed growing differences over military operations in Lebanon and the broader strategy toward Iran.

Trump has become increasingly vocal in expressing dissatisfaction with Israel's handling of its campaign against Hezbollah.

Speaking at the G7 summit, he criticised both the duration of the conflict and the tactics being employed. “I’m not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and Hezbollah,” the US president said. “They should have been able to handle themselves faster.”

He continued, “Israel is fighting Hezbollah too long, and too many people are being killed.”

Trump also questioned the necessity of large-scale strikes on residential structures. “You don’t have to knock down an apartment house every time you’re looking for somebody. There are a lot of people in those apartment houses and they’re not all Hezbollah.”

Trump added Netanyahu “has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon.” Referring specifically to Israeli strikes conducted on Sunday, Trump said, “I did not like that, I let them know that,” describing the attacks as “too much.”

The comments were notable because American presidents have historically been reluctant to publicly criticise Israeli military tactics in such direct terms. Trump's frustration appears to stem partly from concerns that Israeli actions risked disrupting negotiations with Iran at a critical moment.

Recent strikes in Beirut reportedly occurred while Washington was attempting to finalise the diplomatic framework that eventually became the memorandum of understanding.

Trump suggested that those operations could have complicated his efforts to secure a broader settlement. At another point during his remarks, Trump highlighted what he views as his record of support for Israel while simultaneously urging restraint.

“Without the US, there would be no Israel. Without me, there would be no Israel because no other President was willing to do what I did,” Trump said. “I have had a great relationship with Bibi. Now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon.”

A White House social media account later distributed video clips of those remarks, drawing additional attention to the president's criticism. The administration did not explain why those specific comments were highlighted publicly.

Nevertheless, White House officials stressed that relations between the two governments remained strong. One official said Trump maintains a strong relationship with Netanyahu and praised cooperation with the Israeli military.

“There has been no greater friend to Israel and a fighter for peace than President Trump...Americans and our allies around the world are already safer for the United States and Israel’s bold actions to deny the Iranian regime the ability to develop a nuclear weapon,” the official said.

The latest dispute is the newest chapter in a relationship that has experienced periodic tensions despite years of close cooperation.

Netanyahu has served as prime minister through multiple American administrations and has clashed at various times with leaders from both political parties. Yet observers note that Trump has recently become more willing than previous presidents to express frustration publicly.

Domestic political considerations may also be influencing the debate. Trump is attempting to defend an agreement that could attract criticism from some Republicans ahead of November's midterm elections.

Although he has argued that the accord prevents Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, critics note that several longstanding US objectives remain unresolved. Iran's political system remains intact. Its ballistic missile programme has not been dismantled. Tehran has also not ended support for regional organisations such as Hezbollah.

At the same time, Iran's leadership faces pressure of its own. After months of conflict and economic disruption, expectations within the country have risen that any agreement with Washington should produce meaningful economic benefits.

Will the ceasefire hold?

Whether the memorandum ultimately succeeds may depend on actors who were not directly involved in the negotiations. Israel has distanced itself from both the April ceasefire and the new US-Iran arrangement.

The government has made clear that it reserves the right to continue military operations in Lebanon regardless of diplomatic developments elsewhere.

That position creates uncertainty over whether a broader cessation of hostilities can be sustained. The stakes are considerable.

The conflict has spread across much of West Asia and has reportedly killed more than 7,000 people, with the majority of fatalities occurring in Iran and Lebanon.

Lebanon became a central battlefield after Hezbollah entered the conflict and Israel later launched military operations there.

With inputs from agencies