The disagreements emerged as the United States pursued an agreement with Iran aimed at ending hostilities and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global energy shipments. Netanyahu reportedly argued for maintaining pressure on Tehran and expressed skepticism about the durability and enforceability of any negotiated settlement.

According to the report, Israeli officials were surprised by Washington’s decision to move toward a diplomatic framework with Iran after months of military confrontation and coordinated efforts to contain Tehran’s regional influence.

During a series of conversations, Netanyahu questioned whether Iran could be trusted to adhere to any agreement and warned against easing pressure on its leadership. Trump, meanwhile, focused increasingly on preventing a broader regional war and minimizing the economic consequences of continued conflict, particularly disruptions to energy markets and maritime trade.

Differences between the two leaders also extended to Lebanon, where Trump reportedly objected to Israeli military operations that could jeopardize ongoing ceasefire initiatives.

The Washington Post reported that exchanges between the leaders became increasingly strained as Trump challenged the strategic value of certain military actions and urged greater restraint in order to preserve diplomatic momentum.

The tensions mark a significant departure from the close alignment that characterized much of the conflict. Throughout the war, Netanyahu had advocated a more aggressive approach toward Iran, presenting intelligence assessments and military proposals while encouraging stronger U.S. involvement.

Trump initially supported many of those objectives and maintained close oversight of developments on the battlefield. However, the report said he later rejected options that could have expanded direct American involvement or prolonged the conflict.

The evolving relationship reflects broader debates within Washington over how best to balance military deterrence with diplomatic engagement in the Middle East.

According to the report, Trump increasingly sought alternative assessments from advisers after discussions with Netanyahu, while some officials within the administration questioned whether domestic political considerations in Israel were influencing decisions related to military operations and regional diplomacy.

Despite the disagreements, the United States and Israel continue to maintain extensive security cooperation. Military coordination between the two countries reportedly expanded significantly during the conflict, with officials describing the level of operational collaboration as unprecedented.

Netanyahu has cultivated a close working relationship with Trump over the past year through frequent visits, regular consultations and public displays of solidarity. However, the latest differences suggest that diverging priorities over Iran, Lebanon and regional stabilization efforts are placing new strains on one of the Middle East’s most consequential strategic partnerships.

The reported disputes come at a critical moment as negotiators seek to transform the U.S.-Iran ceasefire arrangement into a broader settlement while international actors push for a durable ceasefire in Lebanon and greater regional stability.

The discussions come a day after Washington and Tehran signed an interim agreement that commits participating parties to respect Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, a provision that could complicate Israel’s efforts to preserve a military presence in areas it has seized during recent operations.

Two Israeli officials, including a senior official close to Netanyahu, told Reuters that Israel is seeking U.S. acceptance of its continued troop deployment south of Lebanon’s Litani River, a strategically important area that Israeli leaders regard as essential to national security.

The senior official said Israel was conducting “stubborn negotiations” with Washington and would not retreat from its core position that troops should remain deployed in southern Lebanon despite mounting international pressure.

A second Israeli official said the outcome could ultimately depend on whether Trump chooses to exert direct pressure on Israel by linking compliance with the broader U.S.-Iran diplomatic framework to future bilateral cooperation.

Netanyahu’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Israel expanded military operations in southern Lebanon after Hezbollah launched attacks against Israeli territory on March 2 in support of Iran following the outbreak of hostilities involving Tehran and its regional allies. Israeli forces subsequently carried out a large-scale air and ground campaign aimed at degrading Hezbollah’s military infrastructure.

Israeli officials have described territory captured in Lebanon, Gaza and Syria as part of a network of “buffer zones” designed to provide strategic depth and reduce security threats along Israel’s borders. Netanyahu has consistently rejected calls for withdrawal from those areas, arguing that they are necessary to prevent future attacks.

The dispute over Lebanon has become one of the most visible points of friction between Trump and Netanyahu despite their close cooperation during the conflict with Iran.

Speaking at the conclusion of the G7 summit in France on Wednesday, Trump publicly urged the Israeli leader to exercise greater restraint in Lebanon and suggested that military actions should be calibrated to support diplomatic efforts rather than undermine them.

“Netanyahu happens to be a good man, gets a little excited sometimes,” Trump told reporters.

The U.S. president added that Israel could adopt a “softer touch” in dealing with Hezbollah and questioned the necessity of extensive military strikes in response to every perceived threat.

“We have a little dispute over Lebanon. I say you can do a little softer touch, Bibi,” Trump said, referring to Netanyahu by his nickname.

The disagreement reflects broader tensions surrounding efforts to convert the U.S.-Iran interim agreement into a permanent settlement. Iran has repeatedly argued that any durable regional arrangement must include an end to hostilities in Lebanon and a withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied areas.

Netanyahu has maintained that Israel is not bound by agreements negotiated between Washington and Tehran and retains full freedom of action against Hezbollah.

Despite the public disagreements, Trump acknowledged Netanyahu’s role during the conflict with Iran and praised the close military coordination between the United States and Israel throughout the campaign.

Trump also rejected reports suggesting that Washington had excluded Israel from discussions surrounding the interim agreement, stating that he had personally shared the memorandum of understanding reached with Iran. The framework is expected to serve as the basis for broader U.S.-Iran negotiations scheduled to begin in Switzerland on Friday.

The talks over Lebanon underscore the challenge facing both governments as they attempt to balance military objectives, regional diplomacy and competing visions for post-conflict security arrangements across the Middle East.

Trump, who has historically described Netanyahu as a close ally, claimed credit for Israel’s existence and said in remarks that “without me, there would be no Israel,” while also criticizing Netanyahu’s recent decisions, including Israeli actions in Lebanon.

The comments mark a rare public rupture in a long-standing US-Israel relationship. Trump said he told Netanyahu he was unhappy with recent developments and urged him to act more responsibly regarding Lebanon.

The tensions come as Trump advances a diplomatic agreement with Iran expected to be signed in Geneva, with analysts saying Netanyahu’s actions could complicate Washington’s negotiating position.

According to observers, Trump appears willing to use political leverage against Netanyahu to secure a deal that would end the conflict with Iran, even if it strains bilateral ties.

The dispute also reflects broader political divisions in the United States over support for Israel, with growing criticism from both progressive and conservative circles.

While some pro-Israel groups dismissed the remarks as routine political friction, others said the public nature of Trump’s criticism was unusual and potentially damaging to diplomatic relations.

The agreement, signed on June 14 and scheduled for an official ceremony in Switzerland on June 19, includes provisions for an “immediate and permanent” end to military operations and outlines commitments by Iran to pause nuclear enrichment activity in exchange for sanctions relief and the release of frozen funds, though several terms remain subject to final negotiations.

Iran has sought broad economic relief as part of the arrangement, including the lifting of sanctions and access to frozen assets, while Iranian state media has cited a draft proposal that reportedly includes the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian funds during the negotiating period, though this has not been confirmed by either side.

A central obstacle lies in the United Nations Security Council’s “snapback” mechanism under Resolution 2231, which allowed for the reimposition of previously lifted sanctions on Iran following a notification of non-compliance by France, Germany and Britain in August 2025, resulting in sanctions being restored in September 2025.

Those measures include restrictions on Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes, asset freezes, travel bans and limits on Iranian banks’ access to the global financial system, and remain in force despite the US-Iran agreement, which does not affect UN-level restrictions.

The legal framework governing the sanctions means that while the United States can adjust its own unilateral measures, any reversal of UN sanctions requires consensus among Security Council members, a process complicated by deep divisions over the legality of the snapback mechanism.

China and Russia have challenged the legitimacy of the reimposed sanctions, arguing that earlier UN resolutions had expired, while Western states including the US, France and Britain maintain that the mechanism was properly triggered and therefore binding.

Analysts say this divergence has created an uneven enforcement environment in which some states continue limited trade with Iran while others adhere to restrictions, limiting the effectiveness of both sanctions and potential relief.

Daniel Forti of the International Crisis Group said lifting UN sanctions would require full Security Council agreement, noting that the sanctions cover multiple regimes targeting Iran’s nuclear programme, missile development, financial networks and related assets.

Iranian officials have indicated they will seek a new Security Council resolution to endorse any final agreement, a move that analysts say could provide legal clarity and international legitimacy but would require unanimous approval among permanent members of the Council.

The outcome of the ongoing negotiations will therefore depend not only on bilateral US-Iran terms but also on whether the Security Council can bridge its divisions over the snapback sanctions framework, which remains a central point of contention in the implementation of any broader settlement.

The June 15-17 G7 summit in Evian-les-Bains will focus on the Iran agreement, the war in Ukraine, global economic imbalances and efforts to secure critical minerals outside China’s dominant supply chains.US President Donald Trump is due to attend the gathering after skipping last year’s G7 summit in Canada early.

French officials said his participation was important as allies seek coordination on major international issues.G7 leaders have been affected by Washington’s recent foreign policy decisions, which have reshaped debates over the Middle East, global trade and diplomatic relations.

Trump is scheduled to meet Middle Eastern leaders and hold talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during the summit. The meeting with Zelensky comes as Ukraine continues to seek military support while Russian advances have slowed.G7 members are expected to seek details of the US-Iran agreement.

A memorandum of understanding is scheduled to be signed in Switzerland on Friday, though the full terms were not immediately disclosed.Trump said the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for global energy shipments that Iran had effectively closed for months, would reopen on Friday and that the US blockade of Iranian ports would end.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, would end permanently from Monday night. Iranian officials said broader negotiations, including sanctions relief and discussions on its nuclear program, would follow during a 60-day ceasefire period.

The United Arab Emirates, along with mediators Qatar and Egypt, will also participate in the G7 discussions.The summit is also a major diplomatic moment for French President Emmanuel Macron, who is hosting the meeting during the final phase of his presidency.

France has used its G7 leadership to push discussions on global economic imbalances, describing the issue as a shared challenge involving China’s production capacity, US consumption and European investment levels.Brazil, India, Kenya and South Korea have been invited to join the talks, while Macron has encouraged China to increase domestic consumption.

Trump said the operation was conducted by the US Southern Command and coordinated with Venezuelan authorities. Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said the strike took place earlier in the week and confirmed Guerrero was killed.

Venezuela’s information ministry said the operation involved clashes with criminal groups and that Guerrero was neutralized, adding that the action involved intelligence-sharing and specialized technological support.

The Trump administration has previously sanctioned Guerrero and other Tren de Aragua leaders over alleged involvement in drug trafficking, human smuggling and money laundering. Washington has designated Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization.

Trump has accused the group of coordinating activities in the United States with Venezuela’s government, a claim his administration has cited in support of deportation measures targeting some migrants.

Tren de Aragua emerged from Venezuela’s Tocorón prison and expanded across parts of Latin America. Authorities have linked the group to crimes including extortion, kidnapping, human trafficking, money laundering and organized criminal activity.

Guerrero escaped from Tocorón prison in 2023 shortly before a police operation against the facility, according to authorities.

Trump told reporters at the White House that Taiwan policy would remain part of discussions with Xi despite Beijing’s longstanding opposition to U.S. military support for the island.

“President Xi would like us not to,” Trump said when asked about continued U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan. “That’s one of the many things I’ll be talking about.”
China regards Taiwan as part of its territory and has repeatedly condemned U.S. military assistance to the democratically governed island, while Taiwan rejects Beijing’s sovereignty claims.

The United States maintains a “one-China policy,” formally recognizing Beijing while remaining legally obligated under U.S. law to help Taiwan maintain defensive capabilities.

Tensions between Washington and Beijing intensified in December when the Trump administration approved an arms package for Taiwan valued at more than $11 billion, the largest such deal announced by the United States.

Trump administration officials have also recently urged Taiwan to increase defense spending as pressure from China continues to grow in the Taiwan Strait.

Despite heightened regional tensions, Trump said he did not believe military conflict over Taiwan would erupt during his presidency, citing his personal relationship with Xi.

In Taipei, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hsiao Kuang-wei said Taiwan would continue strengthening defense cooperation with Washington and building deterrence capabilities to preserve regional stability.

Trump also said he intended to raise the case of Lai, the founder of the now-closed Apple Daily newspaper and one of Hong Kong’s most prominent pro-democracy figures.

Lai was sentenced in February to 20 years in prison on charges including conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and publishing seditious materials under Hong Kong’s national security framework.

“People would like him out, and I’d like to see him get out too,” Trump said, adding that he had previously discussed the matter with Chinese officials.
Lai’s imprisonment has drawn criticism from Western governments and international rights organizations, which argue that Beijing’s national security crackdown has sharply curtailed civil liberties and press freedom in Hong Kong.

Trump said he would also raise the detention of Jin Mingri, leader of the independent Zion Church, who was arrested after Chinese authorities tightened restrictions on unauthorized religious activity and online preaching.

A recent escalation in US policy toward Cuba is disrupting longstanding international medical programmes, with potential consequences for healthcare systems across Latin America and the Caribbean.

The measures, which target the deployment of Cuban doctors abroad, are part of broader economic and diplomatic pressure on Havana, a country that has been under US sanctions for decades.Cuba’s overseas medical missions have historically been a central component of its international engagement and a significant source of revenue.

Since the 1959 revolution, the Cuban government has deployed medical professionals to countries facing shortages, initially responding to crises such as the 1960 earthquake in Chile. Over time, these efforts evolved into formal bilateral agreements, with Cuban doctors providing services in underserved regions across Latin America, the Caribbean, and beyond.

According to Tiago Rogero, South America correspondent for The Guardian, these programmes have become increasingly constrained due to US pressure on host countries. Washington has argued that the arrangements amount to exploitative labour practices, citing the Cuban state’s retention of a portion of doctors’ earnings.

While some testimonies from medical personnel have supported claims of exploitation, Rogero noted that this does not represent the majority view among those involved. Analysts cited in his reporting suggest that financial considerations specifically limiting revenue flows to the Cuban government—are a central factor behind the policy.

The withdrawal of Cuban medical personnel is already affecting healthcare provision in several countries. A number of governments have ended their agreements with Cuba, in some cases under pressure linked to US sanctions mechanisms such as financial restrictions and visa policies. These measures have reduced the availability of healthcare workers in regions that were already facing shortages.

Cuban doctors have played a significant role in filling gaps in national health systems, particularly in remote or low-income areas where local capacity is limited. In countries such as Brazil, they have been deployed to underserved communities, often in roles that domestic practitioners were unwilling or unable to fill.

Their presence has been part of a broader strategy sometimes referred to as “medical diplomacy,” through which Cuba has combined healthcare assistance with international cooperation.Beyond their immediate service delivery, Cuban medical programmes have also included training initiatives for foreign students in Cuban institutions.

This has contributed to building healthcare capacity in partner countries, although such efforts typically require long-term investment before yielding results.The current policy shift is raising concerns among healthcare professionals and development experts about the absence of alternative arrangements.

Rogero reported that non-governmental organisations and local practitioners anticipate a worsening of healthcare access in affected regions. “Most of these countries do not have enough doctors of their own,” he said, adding that the termination of Cuban programmes is not being matched by new support mechanisms.

The policy comes in the context of a broader reduction in US development assistance. The dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which previously funded health and development programmes in Latin America, has further limited available resources.

Observers note that this combination reduced aid and restrictions on third-party assistance—may intensify existing vulnerabilities in public health systems.The geopolitical dimension of the policy is also evident. US sanctions have long been used as a tool of foreign policy toward Cuba, and recent measures, including tighter fuel restrictions, indicate an expansion of pressure.

While the stated rationale focuses on labour conditions within the medical missions, analysts suggest the policy aligns with broader efforts to constrain the Cuban state economically.For recipient countries, the immediate concern remains service continuity. Healthcare systems in parts of Latin America and the Caribbean rely heavily on external support to address shortages in personnel and infrastructure.

The removal of Cuban doctors is expected to disproportionately affect rural and low-income populations, where access to medical care is already limited.Rogero emphasised that the impact will be most acute among vulnerable groups. “How will they cope now without the few doctors they had?” he said, pointing to the lack of contingency planning. In many cases, Cuban medical teams represented the primary or sole source of healthcare provision in certain communities.

The situation underscores the interconnected nature of global health systems and the role of international cooperation in addressing disparities. As policy decisions reshape these arrangements, the consequences are likely to be felt most strongly at the local level, where healthcare access depends on sustained and coordinated support.

Trump indicated the pause was intended to create diplomatic space for negotiations, signaling a possible shift toward a negotiated resolution in the strategically vital waterway, a key global oil transit route.

The decision comes amid heightened tensions linked to the ongoing Iran conflict, which has disrupted shipping flows and contributed to increased energy costs. Despite the pause in operational activity, the continued enforcement of the blockade suggests that pressure on the situation will be maintained while talks proceed.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant share of the world’s oil supply passes, has remained at the center of geopolitical and economic concerns, with recent incidents underscoring the risks to commercial shipping and global energy markets.

US officials have not disclosed details of the proposed agreement or the parties involved, and no timeline has been provided for the duration of the pause.

The exchange follows recent remarks by Trump accusing the pope of being lenient on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a claim Leo denied, reiterating that the Catholic Church has consistently opposed nuclear weapons and advocates for peace.

“The mission of the Church is to preach the Gospel, to preach peace,” Leo said on Tuesday, responding to Trump’s comments. He added that while criticism was inevitable, his position remained rooted in longstanding Church teaching against nuclear arms.

Trump, speaking on a radio program, suggested the pope’s views could endanger people, asserting that Leo appeared to tolerate the idea of Iran possessing nuclear weapons. The Vatican has maintained that the pope has never endorsed such a position and has instead opposed the ongoing war, which the US administration says is aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear program.

US Ambassador to the Holy See Brian Burch said Rubio’s visit would focus on dialogue rather than confrontation. “Nations have disagreements, and one way to address them is through fraternity and authentic dialogue,” Burch told reporters, adding that the secretary of state would seek to “talk through” any differences.

Burch dismissed suggestions of a deep rift between Washington and the Vatican, framing the visit as an opportunity to improve mutual understanding. Rubio, a Catholic, previously met Leo following the pope’s inaugural mass last year, alongside Vice President JD Vance.Rubio is also scheduled to meet Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Friday.

Meloni has publicly defended the pope, while members of her government have raised concerns about the broader geopolitical implications of the Iran conflict.

Leo, marking his first year as head of the 1.4-billion-member Catholic Church this week, has emerged as a vocal critic of the Iran war in recent weeks. He has also spoken out against US immigration policies and called for renewed dialogue between the United States and Cuba.