US President Donald Trump is expected to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on December 29, either at the White House or Mar-a-Lago, in a meeting that could mark a pivotal moment in bilateral ties and test the strength of their strategic partnership. Coming barely six months after their joint confrontation with Iran, the talks will test the resilience of a strategic partnership that has increasingly been marked by a gap between political rhetoric and military reality.
The June conflict, branded by Washington as Operation Midnight Hammer and complemented by Israel’s covert Operation Narnia, was publicly celebrated by Trump as having “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear threat. That claim has since become a central pillar of his foreign policy narrative. Yet intelligence assessments in both countries suggest a more ambiguous outcome. While the strikes inflicted serious damage on Iranian infrastructure, they did not permanently dismantle Tehran’s nuclear or conventional military capabilities.
Israel’s campaign relied heavily on what officials describe as strategic deception. In the weeks before the fighting, Jerusalem deliberately projected friction with the Trump administration, creating the impression of diplomatic distance. The aim was to lull Tehran into complacency. When the strikes came in June, they were swift and multilayered. Israeli attacks were followed by US B-2 bombers hitting deeply buried facilities, marking one of the most direct American military interventions against Iran in decades.
The results were significant but limited. Uranium enrichment sites were badly damaged, and 11 senior Iranian nuclear scientists were killed. However, post-war intelligence reviews indicate that Iran’s nuclear programme was disrupted rather than erased. Outgoing Mossad chief David Barnea and other Israeli officials have warned that Tehran is already working to reconstitute its capabilities and retains the ambition to achieve a rapid nuclear breakout once international pressure eases.
Despite the prominence of the nuclear issue, the immediate driver of Netanyahu’s urgent visit to Florida lies elsewhere. Israeli defence planners are increasingly alarmed by Iran’s efforts to rebuild and expand its ballistic missile production. According to Israeli estimates, Iran could reach an output of up to 3,000 missiles a year if left unchecked. That prospect is viewed in Jerusalem as an urgent and tangible threat.
The June war provided a sobering demonstration of Iran’s conventional firepower. Although Israel achieved aerial superiority, its Iron Dome and Arrow missile defence systems were unable to intercept every incoming projectile. Iran’s retaliation involved over 500 ballistic missiles and around 1,100 drones. Thirty-two people were killed, thousands were injured, and large numbers of civilians were displaced. For Israeli officials, the lesson was clear. The missile threat is not theoretical but lethally practical.
Strategically, Israel sees Iran’s missile programme as inseparable from its nuclear ambitions. Ballistic missiles form the shield behind which a future nuclear capability could be protected. If Tehran can mass-produce missiles in sufficient numbers, it may deter Israel from launching further preemptive strikes against nuclear facilities. In that scenario, Iran would gain strategic depth and freedom of action.
Netanyahu is therefore expected to present Trump with a familiar menu of military options, largely unchanged from those discussed before the June conflict. These range from an independent Israeli strike, through a campaign with limited US support, to a fully joint operation or even a US-led assault. The objective will be to secure either a green light or direct American participation in a preventive effort to cripple Iran’s missile production lines before they reach full capacity.
The political context in Washington, however, complicates this request. Trump has invested heavily in portraying himself as the architect of a ceasefire in Gaza and the leader who neutralised Iran’s nuclear threat. Authorising or joining another major military campaign so soon after declaring victory risks undermining that narrative. There are also reports that the administration is considering military action in Venezuela, a move that could divert attention and resources away from the Middle East.
The fragile nature of the Gaza ceasefire could be another sticking point. Washington appears reluctant to sanction another round of conflict with Iran while the Palestinian front remains unstable. Intelligence considerations will loom large in the discussions. The exposure of Operation Narnia has highlighted the extent of Israel’s reliance on human intelligence and subterfuge. Israeli operatives reportedly armed more than 100 agents inside Iran to conduct sabotage and targeted attacks before the air campaign began. Netanyahu is likely to point to this capability as evidence that Iran’s rebuilding efforts are detectable and vulnerable.
At the heart of the talks lies a fundamental divergence in perception. For Trump, Iran’s nuclear threat has been eliminated and peace proclaimed. For Israel, the threat has merely been postponed and is now being rebuilt beneath the cover of an expanding missile arsenal. Whether the two leaders can reconcile these views may determine not only the future of US-Israel relations but also the next phase of confrontation with Iran.