Tehran – Netanyahu’s trip to Washington followed a four-day visit to Hungary. It was hosted there by Prime Minister Victor Orban, a critic of the ICC’s voice. Hungary, a member of the EU and despite the theory that it is an obligation to enforce ICC warrants, openly ignored the court’s authority, allowing Netanyahu to attend without the risk of arrest.
This pattern of selective violations of international law set the stage for his visit to the United States. There, the lack of ICC jurisdiction equally protects him from legal consequences.
The timing of your trip is important. Tensions in the Israel-Hamas conflict are rising as Israel expands its military operations in Gaza and faces global criticism. An ICC warrant issued on November 21, 2024 condemns Netanyahu and his former war minister Joab Gallant for the bravery of war crimes. The court’s decision met fierce opposition from Israel and its allies, including the United States, which President Joe Biden called it “outrageous” in 2024, and the Trump administration, which imposed sanctions on ICC officials in February 2025.
Although ICC guarantees dominate international headlines, Netanyahu is similarly facing domestic challenges, particularly his corruption trial in Israel. As of March 2025, Netanyahu was caught up in legal proceedings in Tel Aviv, and was charged with bribery, fraud and trust violations in three separate cases.
During his visit to Washington on April 6, Netanyahu’s domestic legal calamity was temporarily covered by international diplomacy, but they remain an important factor in his political survival. The trial has fueled protests in Israel, with thousands demanding his resignation, accusing him of prioritizing personal interests over national interests. Critics argue that his foreign travel, including Hungary and the present-day US, is an attempt to distract attention from these domestic pressures and to reinforce his image as a global leader who is not afraid of international criticism.
Therefore, Netanyahu’s visit to Washington can be seen as a strategic effort aimed at addressing some pressing issues that are crucial to Israel’s national interests.
Talking about Iran and Gaza at Centre Stage
Beyond economic concerns, Netanyahu’s visit includes important local security issues. The debate with President Trump addressed tensions with Iran, an ongoing conflict in Gaza. The urgency of these consultations is highlighted by the recent deployment of advanced US missile defense systems to Israel, including THAAD and patriot batteries amid growing regional tensions.
Trump told reporters on Sunday: Media sources said this was interpreted in Israel as referring to either prisoners held in Gaza or to Iran’s nuclear program.
Strategies to resolve the Gaza War, prisoners’ issues
Tensions in Gaza have escalated significantly in recent months. On April 6, 2025, Hamas launched several rockets in cities in southern Israel in response to the Israeli “genocide” in Gaza. In retaliation, Israeli forces carried out airstrikes on targets in Gaza, killing at least 39 people.
Reports say Israel controls more than 50% of the Gaza Strip by establishing a buffer zone. The move led to extensive destruction of Palestinian homes, farmland and infrastructure. Some analysts describe these actions as potential ethnic cleansing and war crimes.
During the meeting, Netanyahu and Trump will discuss the proposed plans for Gaza’s future. The plan includes the development of more than 2 million Palestinians from Gaza into tourist destinations. The proposal faces widespread criticism, and many have condemned it as a violation of international law and an act of ethnic cleansing.
In his actions against Netanyahu’s policy of violence in Gaza, we can mention protests calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and calling for a prisoner exchange contract that has arrived in Washington, D.C.
The conference came amid growing international concerns about the escalation of violence in Gaza and its humanitarian impact. Human rights activists and international organizations are calling for immediate halts of violence and the initiation of peace negotiations.
The fork of Trump and Netanyahu in Iran
The issue of Iran is the linchpin of Netanyahu’s visit to the US, revealing both alignment and friction between the two leaders. Trump and Netanyahu share their goal of neutralizing what they perceive as a regional stability and Iranian threat to their respective national interests. However, those strategies, timelines, and underlying motivations diverge greatly, raising questions about the feasibility and outcome of collaboration.
Netanyahu’s arrival in the United States on April 6th came at a pivotal moment for both Israel and the Middle East. Since Trump took office, his administration has shown a return to “maximum pressure” policy on Iran. Iran was accompanied by a strategy first adopted in its first term, along with strict sanctions and withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Action Plan (JCPOA). For Netanyahu, who has long argued that Iran is an existential threat, Trump’s presidency represents an opportunity to more closely coordinate US policies with Israel’s Hawkish stance. Therefore, visits by Israeli leaders were not merely diplomatic courtesy, but rather a strategic play to solidify US support for potential military action against Iran.
The issue of Iran is the linchpin of Netanyahu’s visit to the US, revealing both alignment and friction between the two leaders. Trump and Netanyahu share the goal of neutralizing what they claim as a regional stability and Iranian threat to their respective national interests. However, those strategies, timelines, and underlying motivations diverge greatly, raising questions about the feasibility and outcome of collaboration.
He consistently claims that Iran is trying to destroy Israel, citing support for Tehran’s axis of resistance. Meanwhile, Trump sees Iran as a volatile force in West Asia, undermining US interests, particularly in the region, and oil exports and influence. During his first term, Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, imposed serious sanctions and approved the assassination of Iranian general Kasem Soleimani.
Despite the integrity of their goals, Trump and Netanyahu have different tactics, timing, and US roles in conflict with Iran. Netanyahu faces domestic pressure from his far-right coalition partners, and the people tired of long-term conflict seem eager to escalate military action against Iran faster and faster.
But Trump has shown a preference for negotiations for immediate military involvement, at least initially. In April 2025, he expressed openness to direct consultations with Iran, claiming that the intermediary would slow progress. This stance is in contrast to Netanyahu’s skepticism about diplomacy, as the Israeli Prime Minister believes that dealing with Iran is a repetition of the JCPOA. Furthermore, Trump’s domestic challenges, tariff disputes, economic volatility, and political polarization could make him cautious about launching another Western Asian conflict, especially given his campaign promise to avoid foreign wars.
Bigger Pictures, Story Questions
Netanyahu’s trip to Washington is more than a diplomatic involvement. This is a high stakes gambit by leaders facing unprecedented challenges. By working with Trump to oppose the ICC, he tries to project strength and immunity, but this strategy comes at a cost. In the country, his corruption trials and public dissatisfaction can erode the foundations of his power. Internationally, he refused to be involved in ICC risks, further segregation of Israel and alienate allies who value multilateralism.
The visit also highlights the vulnerability of global justice mechanisms in the face of geopolitical forces. The ICC warrant is a symbolic victory over accountability, but the lack of enforcement reveals the limitations of international law when faced with decisive resistance from a powerful nation and its allies. For Netanyahu, the trip may offer temporary relief, but the long-term outcome remains uncertain.
As the world sees, questions remain. Can leaders accused of war crimes and corruption continue to circumvent justice, or will the weight of international and domestic pressures ultimately enforce accountability?