No Servant of Two Masters: Israel’s Sovereignty Crisis
When the authority to end war no longer resides in Jerusalem
For years, Benjamin Netanyahu cultivated the image of a leader uniquely capable of managing Israel’s relationship with the United States. His supporters portrayed this relationship not merely as diplomacy, but as a strategic asset inseparable from his own political leadership. The close identification between Netanyahu and Donald Trump gradually evolved into something deeper than ordinary alliance politics: a model of governance increasingly dependent upon external political patronage. Yet the recent revelations concerning the negotiations that produced the ceasefire with Iran expose the fragility — and perhaps the illusion — underlying this entire structure.
According to “Once Trump’s Co-Pilot Against Iran, Netanyahu Is Now a Mere Passenger,” published in The New York Times, Israeli officials were effectively excluded from the negotiations that shaped the ceasefire framework with Iran.¹ Even more strikingly, Israeli decision-makers reportedly learned about aspects of the evolving talks not through direct participation with their principal ally, but through regional diplomatic contacts and intelligence channels operating within Iran itself. Members of Trump’s inner circle allegedly viewed broader Israeli ambitions regarding regime change in Iran as unrealistic from the outset, and American priorities shifted decisively once instability surrounding the Strait of Hormuz threatened oil markets and broader economic stability.¹
If accurate, these reports reveal far more than a temporary diplomatic disagreement. They expose a constitutional reality concerning the actual distribution of strategic authority within the alliance between Israel and the United States.
The episode reveals a distinction that Israeli political discourse has systematically attempted to obscure: the distinction between operational autonomy and strategic sovereignty. Israel may possess extraordinary military capabilities. It can strike, escalate, mobilize, and project force across the region. Yet the authority to determine the political endpoint of conflict — the authority to decide when wars end, under what conditions, and according to whose priorities — appears increasingly concentrated in Washington rather than Jerusalem.
This distinction is not semantic. It defines the difference between sovereign agency and managed dependency.
Throughout the confrontation with Iran, Israeli leadership projected the image of strategic initiative and national determination. Yet when the decisive diplomatic phase emerged, Israel reportedly found itself sidelined from the negotiations shaping the conflict’s conclusion. Once threats to global energy markets intensified and domestic American economic considerations entered the equation, Israeli strategic preferences became subordinate to American electoral, economic, and geopolitical calculations.
This is the reality of asymmetric alliances. Great powers do not subordinate their interests to smaller allies; smaller allies eventually discover the limits of their autonomy. What makes the present situation particularly striking, however, is the degree to which Israeli political culture under Netanyahu transformed dependency itself into a political ideology. Personal proximity to Trump was repeatedly presented as proof of diplomatic mastery. Yet dependency disguised as influence remains dependency.
This structural tension has become increasingly visible in recent months. In “America’s Iran Deal, Israel’s Existential Risk,” I argued that strategic dependence upon American political calculations inevitably constrains Israeli autonomy once American domestic interests diverge from Israeli security priorities.² In “The Question Israelis Are Asking — and Netanyahu Must Answer,” I argued that the deeper crisis facing Israel is not merely operational or military, but institutional and constitutional: whether political leadership remains accountable primarily to Israeli society itself or increasingly derives legitimacy from external political alignment and perpetual states of emergency.³ The current revelations appear to confirm both concerns simultaneously.
The irony is profound. A leadership that consistently presented itself as the guardian of Israeli sovereignty appears increasingly unable to exercise sovereign influence over the very conflicts it initiates. Military strength created the appearance of independence, while diplomatic exclusion revealed the underlying hierarchy of power.
The New Testament warning that “no servant can serve two masters” acquires an unexpected geopolitical inversion in this context.⁴ The modern danger is not divided loyalty between competing powers, but the gradual transformation of alliance into political dependency so extensive that independent strategic judgment itself begins to disappear. Under such conditions, sovereignty survives symbolically while substantive authority migrates elsewhere.
A sovereign state does not learn the terms of war termination through rumors, intermediaries, and intelligence leaks. It participates directly in shaping them. When it no longer does so, the problem is no longer merely diplomatic. It becomes constitutional.
Israel may still possess overwhelming military power. But sovereignty ultimately resides not in the capacity to begin wars, strike targets, or project force. It resides in the authority to decide when wars end — and in the ability to do so without waiting for permission from elsewhere.
Notes
- Isabel Kershner and Michael D. Shear, “Once Trump’s Co-Pilot Against Iran, Netanyahu Is Now a Mere Passenger,” The New York Times, May 23, 2026,
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/23/world/middleeast/israel-trump-iran.html - Haim V. Levy, “America’s Iran Deal, Israel’s Existential Risk,” The Times of Israel Blogs, May 8, 2026,
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/americas-iran-deal-israels-existential-risk/ - Haim V. Levy, “The Question Israelis Are Asking — and Netanyahu Must Answer,” The Times of Israel Blogs, May 12, 2026,
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-question-israelis-are-asking-and-netanyahu-must-answer/ - Matthew 6:24, New International Version,
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6%3A24&version=NIV
