Revealed: Trump Once Fumed and Called Netanyahu a Fraud
A new book has revealed that US President Donald Trump once launched a fierce criticism at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, calling him a con man. The remarks were reportedly made at the start of Trump’s second term, when the two disagreed over plans to attack Iran.
The information was disclosed in the book Regime Change by New York Times journalist Maggie Haberman. Excerpts published by CNN on 19 June depict tensions in the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu during the first months of Trump’s return to the presidency.
According to Haberman, Netanyahu at the time sought to convince Trump to have the United States join a military operation against Iran. However, Trump rejected the proposal and vented his frustration to one of his advisers.
The book states that Trump called Netanyahu a con man, a term the author describes as one of the harshest insults in Trump’s political vocabulary.
Trump’s refusal at the time to go to war with Iran was also conveyed to political commentator Tucker Carlson. According to the book, Carlson warned that a conflict with Iran could be the one thing capable of destroying Trump’s leadership.
Nevertheless, Trump’s stance later shifted. In February, he held a meeting in the White House Situation Room with Netanyahu and a number of senior American and Israeli officials.
At that meeting, Netanyahu laid out the reasons Israel wanted a military operation against Iran. After hearing the explanation, Trump finally changed his mind and approved the United States’ involvement in the conflict.
Haberman also revealed Trump’s views on the sabotage operation against Hezbollah communication pagers in Lebanon, which took place in September 2024.
According to the book, Trump recounted the incident to Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson in the Oval Office, describing in detail the effects of the explosions, which left victims severely wounded.
The author says Trump repeatedly said ‘this is horrific, this is horrific’ when discussing the incident. At the same time, he also admitted admiration for the operation’s effectiveness, even though he judged the attack to have been carried out broadly and indiscriminately, with an element of recklessness in public spaces.